The Future of D&D

[pemerton]

It is just that there's no clear purpose to the curve. PCs always basically hit on a 10, so do monsters (yeah, the actual numbers vary, maybe its an 8 or whatever). What is the POINT of that?

The half level bonus makes the tiers happen.

If I've understood ardoughter right, then I agree.

The function of the half-level bonus, it seems to me, is to force a default story progression onto the game, from kobolds and goblins up to Orcus and Lolth.

Preserving damage and hit point increases would keep this to an extent, but the half-level bonus practically hardcodes it into the game (assuming a GM is using published material).

Whether this is good or bad is another question. I tend to like it, but I'm still in my first campaign. I haven't had to test the replay value of 4e yet.

EDIT:

Less options is the answer to bloat, but where do many of those options originate from? They exist because it is necessary to maintain the sliding scale of attacks, or 'fix the math' in places where the scale didn't work as it should have.

Now this I agree with. But I think it's mostly stat-scaling rather than level scaling that causes these issues (with defenes, missile attacks, skill bonuses etc). I think getting rid of stat scaling would be a good idea - specialisation could be reflected through powers (including skill powers) and perhaps feats, rather than via stat gain which causes all the DC-setting problems you've described upthread.

 

[Oldtimer]

It is just that there's no clear purpose to the curve. PCs always basically hit on a 10, so do monsters (yeah, the actual numbers vary, maybe its an 8 or whatever). What is the POINT of that? There just is none.

I can see one point here. If my 1st level Feylock attacks Orcus with Eyebite, he's looking at +4 attack bonus vs. 49 Will. Take away Orcus' level bonus and that goes down to +4 vs. 16 Will - quite possible to achieve. Then the party wizard attacks with a dazing attack, or stunning...

When it comes to hit points, 1d6+4 psychic damage from Eyebite is just a mosquito bite on Orcus. But daze, stun, slow, blinded, et al, are still as effective if they hit. That is a huge difference in how the game plays.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

If I've understood ardoughter right, then I agree.

The function of the half-level bonus, it seems to me, is to force a default story progression onto the game, from kobolds and goblins up to Orcus and Lolth.

Preserving damage and hit point increases would keep this to an extent, but the half-level bonus practically hardcodes it into the game (assuming a GM is using published material).

Whether this is good or bad is another question. I tend to like it, but I'm still in my first campaign. I haven't had to test the replay value of 4e yet.

EDIT:


Now this I agree with. But I think it's mostly stat-scaling rather than level scaling that causes these issues (with defenes, missile attacks, skill bonuses etc). I think getting rid of stat scaling would be a good idea - specialisation could be reflected through powers (including skill powers) and perhaps feats, rather than via stat gain which causes all the DC-setting problems you've described upthread.

Yeah, it isn't entirely clear how much is required to drive the story forward. I don't think we'd want something too flat, but I think we could live with a bit less scaling than we have now, how much is ideal is a good question. And yes, agreed, stat bumps and maybe just the steepness of the basic stat bonus itself. Getting rid of stat bumps would be a good start.

I can see one point here. If my 1st level Feylock attacks Orcus with Eyebite, he's looking at +4 attack bonus vs. 49 Will. Take away Orcus' level bonus and that goes down to +4 vs. 16 Will - quite possible to achieve. Then the party wizard attacks with a dazing attack, or stunning...

When it comes to hit points, 1d6+4 psychic damage from Eyebite is just a mosquito bite on Orcus. But daze, stun, slow, blinded, et al, are still as effective if they hit. That is a huge difference in how the game plays.

Yeah, and I don't advocate that simply getting rid of level scaling and leaving the other details of the game EXACTLY the same would cut it. You would for instance still require somewhat higher defenses for high level monsters, so Orcus isn't going to have a 16 Will, but he could have a 21, which would be reasonable for high level PCs to overcome, hittable by lower level ones, but not overly so. Low level PCs simply wouldn't HAVE stun etc. or there would be some other way to limit that (save bonus based on tier difference, whatever, you can come up with something pretty easily). Maybe give conditions a sliding set of ranks that varies with tier or half-tier.

 

[Oldtimer]

Yeah, and I don't advocate that simply getting rid of level scaling and leaving the other details of the game EXACTLY the same would cut it. You would for instance still require somewhat higher defenses for high level monsters, so Orcus isn't going to have a 16 Will, but he could have a 21, which would be reasonable for high level PCs to overcome, hittable by lower level ones, but not overly so. Low level PCs simply wouldn't HAVE stun etc. or there would be some other way to limit that (save bonus based on tier difference, whatever, you can come up with something pretty easily). Maybe give conditions a sliding set of ranks that varies with tier or half-tier.

Yes, you would certainly need to limit the access to conditions when using a near-flat power curve.

I can see two schemes that are much simpler the present progression madness.

1. Near-flat: Monster increase attacks and defences +1/half-tier. Characters increase all abilities by +1 at level 4,8,11,14,18,21,24, and 28. Difference at level 30 +4 vs. +6.

2. Half-level: Both monsters and characters increase attacks and defences +1/2 levels. No difference at level 30.

Scheme 1 would put Orcus at 22 Will (possible to hit for a first level character), while scheme 2 would put him at 32 Will (out of the reach of any first level characters). I can see pros and cons with both schemes.

But both are better than the present mess, IMO.