Using level instead of 1/2 level modifier

[Mentat55]

One of the reasons ability scores increases, magic item enhancement bonuses, masterwork heavy armor, Expertise, and defense-boosting feats exist is to resolve the fact that monster attacks and defenses scale with level, while PC attacks and defenses scale with 1/2 level.

I've been grinding over the following idea:

1. Add your level to attacks, defenses, and ability/skill checks, instead of 1/2 level.
2. Do not increase ability scores as you increase in level. Exception: Epic Destinies (and I might institute a +2 to one ability score as a generic feature of all Epic Destinies).
3. Magic items do not add bonuses to attacks or defenses. Magic weapons and implements continue to add bonuses to damage and criticals.
4. Masterwork armor does not exist.
5. Feats that increase attack rolls and defenses do not scale with tier (just a plain +1) and would be feat bonuses, and maybe more focused than currently.

A quick rundown of the math at level 1:

A level 1 monster would have AC 15, NADs 13, +6 vs. AC, +4 vs. NADs.

A level 1 wizard with 18 Int, 16 Wis, and 12 Con would have a +5 attack (vs. NADs), and AC 15, Fort 11, Ref 14, Will 15. He would hit the monster on 65% of the time, and would be hit anywhere from 70% of the time (vs. Fort) to 50% of the time (vs. Will).

A level 1 paladin with 18 Str, 10 Dex, and 16 Wis, wearing plate armor and a heavy shield and using a longsword, would be +8 vs. AC and have AC 21, Fort 15, Ref 13, Will 14. He would hit the monster 70% of the time, and would be hit anywhere from 60% of the time (vs. Reflex) to 30% of the time (vs. AC).

At level 30, since ability scores don't increase, the math would not shift by much (perhaps attacks and defenses would be shifted +2 relative to monsters because of feats and a bump to the primary ability score through an Epic Destiny). At the same time, at level 30, you start facing monsters that are several levels higher than you...so maybe a +2 here or there is ok.

Thoughts? Obviously, a lot of other changes would have to be made to make this work, but I kind of like the simplicity of it.

 

[fba827]

this type of change might look simple on a per-PC basis, but it does not take party dynamics in to account.

if your party has a leader that tosses around bonuses, you'll see this get out of hand very quickly. in groups with parties where power bonuses are given out, or other situational modifiers are common (such as combat advantage, or a PC that gets concealment often and such) then that on top of this is going to be a huge boost.

however, if your party does not synergize much or coordinate attacks or toss around bonuses to one another, then, sure, this would make up for that lack of party-oriented bonuses.


at least that has been my experience based on party coordination so far.

edit: not to mention magic item bonuses which the PCs get but monsters don't, that also makes up for the half-level difference (though does not scale quite as fast)

 

[Alisair Longreach]

Just adding the level bonus to PCs instead of the default 1/2 level + the usual bonuses do at the first glance look so simple, elegant and very streamlining. Then you start checking the math and you go .

You have to compensate the PCs for the loss of Impement/Weapon enhancement damage, then the Paragon and Epic tier bonus damage from feats. What about the damage bonus from ability score increases? What about the ability score requirements for some Paragon and Epic feats? What about the Magic Item economy, why pay for a +6 item when the +1 have the same properties and powers? Then there is all that Paragon and Epic stuff that will also go out of whack.

In my campaign I use a +8 per tier level bonus which include the 1/2 level bonus, magic item enhancement bonus and the Expertise bonus. This modified level bonus is added to both the PCs attack and damage rolls, AC and Defense scores. It also leaves some room for ability score increases.

Yes, I know I give my PCs a huge damage boost but this is my solution to the "Grind" problem at higher levels.

 

[ggroy]

This was examined in a previous post.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/5061101-post14.html

Taking account of assumptions for magic enhancement, stat boosts, etc ..., the to-hit modifier of:

[level/2] + stat mod + enhancement = to-hit mod

follows approximately the pattern:

to-hit mod = level + 3 + (primary_stat_mod - 4), at heroic tiers of levels 1 to 10

to-hit mod = level + 2 + (primary_stat_mod - 4) , at paragon tiers of levels 11 to 20

to-hit mod = level + (primary_stat_mod - 4), at epic tiers of levels 21 to 30.


In practice, it's basically a to-hit modifier ~ +level.

Somehow the 4E designers thought it was cute to separate "+level" into two parts. The first part is an explicit +[level/2] part. The second part which accounts for magic enhancement, regular stat boosts, etc .. approximately sums up to level/2 numerically.

 

[knightofround]

Thoughts? Obviously, a lot of other changes would have to be made to make this work, but I kind of like the simplicity of it.

Such a change would indeed make things simpler. Unfortunately it would degrade the importance of magic weapons, armor, and a large number of feats. It would also make combat more grindy as NPCs would miss PCs much more often, and as a result greatly empahsize PC offense over PC defense. Thus, it would also wreck the D&D economy which is heavily dependent upon PCs needing new armor/neck/cloak in order to avoid attacks, and new weapons to successfully attack others. Ultimately it would make defenders and leaders far less important than they are now....as such change would move away from tactical combat into who-can-deal-the-most-damage hackfests.

If that's what you want though go for it =) I, too, enjoy the simplicity of your ideas. D&D has always had an option to go with inherant bonuses based by level rather than mixing it up with weapons & armor...but the two campaigns I did with it were rather lackluster. I think 4E took the correct path by going for 1/2 level instead of scaling based upon class, 0, or 1.

 

[corwyn77]

I've been grinding over the following idea:

1. Add your level to attacks, defenses, and ability/skill checks, instead of 1/2 level.
2. Do not increase ability scores as you increase in level. Exception: Epic Destinies (and I might institute a +2 to one ability score as a generic feature of all Epic Destinies).
3. Magic items do not add bonuses to attacks or defenses. Magic weapons and implements continue to add bonuses to damage and criticals.
4. Masterwork armor does not exist.
5. Feats that increase attack rolls and defenses do not scale with tier (just a plain +1) and would be feat bonuses, and maybe more focused than currently.

I think you should seriously look at this thread:

Heroes Don't Need Special Gear to Be Heroic

It completely replaces enhancement bonuses and 'math' feats with level based mods and modifies the economy to account for it. Excellent work.

 

[Mentat55]

Good thread, thanks for the link.

 

[ravenheart]

I had some thoughts on this matter earlier this spring. Had completely forgotten about it 'til now, actually.

Well, what the hey, maybe it'll spark some discussion. Here's a link:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-fan...022-level-instead-level-attacks-defenses.html

 

[Arlough]

As for inherent bonuses as you level, the DMG2 has a set of rules for this, so that part isn't really all that game chaning.
The diminished importance of magical gear could even be a good thing. For example, your party could be on a quest to do something important rather than be on a quest to get the gear that would allow them to do something important.

The parts I see as being a problem are feats, player fun, and party synergy.

I'll use spoiler tags for the more in-depth so if you just want the meat of it you don't have to filter through all my rantings, and then put a summary at the end.

Spoiler

First, the feats:
Many feats have stat requirements. Armor specialization and multiclass feats are the ones that come to mind immediately. These would become significantly less available to players unless you reduced the requirements. (Example: A fighter looking forward to Scale Specialization at 11th level, for example, could take a 14 in DEX and dedicate the rest of his points to STR and WIS, expecting the level 11 stat increase to take care of the prerequisite and the lvl 4 & 8 stat increases to make up for diluting his initial stats.)

The fun:
The stories that most people I know find interesting are the ones of someone growing in some way to overcome obstacles. Mariadoc was not the same hobbit at the end of the books that he was in the beginning of the books. Taran started out as an assistant pig keeper. Cloud began completely delusional and grew to become a marginally well adjusted savior of the world. Hell, even Ebenezer Scrooge is a good example of character growth. The fact of the matter is that growing to overcome obstacles is fun. It is what many people consider to be at the character's story. Part of that growth is the ability to change with the times. To become more excellent in some things, and maybe pick up some talent in others. This would be diminished if you did away with periodic stat increases.

Finally, the synergy:
Being able to mold and meld your character so he or she becomes an integral part of the group is a powerful feature when looked at in a group setting. Each character starts filling in for the deficiencies of the group, and soon you have a symbiotic whole that is much greater than the sum of it's parts. Not really a problem if you build a character at X level every time you play, but if you are carrying a group from level 1 through level 20, that growth as a group is a entertaining exercise in organic synergy.

Basically, you have prerequisites for many feats that will need to be adjusted and even then, you will limit the players options by a bit since they won't be able to adjust as they go along. You will also have less of a player experience of growth, eliminating the anticipatory excitement that precedes each stat increase. And finally, you will have a reduction in group synergy as they will not be as able to adapt to fill in for each-other as they level.

Like so many other things, I think this will look good on paper, and work less well in practice.

Of course, I have been wrong before.

 

[Mentat55]

I understand how lack of ability score increases would impact feats, and of course I would change the requirements on all those feats -- I'd probably even do away with them.

I also appreciate that stat bonuses are a nice reward for players, I could imagine instituting something to account for that, or looking into the math more to see if ability score increases could be accommodated.

However, I don't understand the "reduction in group synergy" comment, however. Players can still take feats and powers that mold their character. And they still choose skills, and allocate their ability scores at 1st level. I am not sure I understand the limitation here.