Why I think you should try 4e (renamed)

[Ariosto]

But make no mistake - people will also dislike a solution where most bonuses are gone. It removes the "meaning" of level or ability scores.

Ah, but to remove that meaning is a direct consequence of WotC's scaling of offense and defense. For the same level +/- X, there is always about the same chance of a hit (dependent now on the monster's "role"). In old D&D, creatures with more levels (thus more hit points) scored hits more often. Yet they were hit as often as ever by lower-level combatants.

Do you begin to see the purposes hit points were designed to serve? If one has several times as many as a foe, then even with equal rates of damage dealing one has an advantage.

 

[Mallus]

If attacks, defenses, and hit points scale more or less equally for PC's and monsters then there isn't really much noticeable improvement in terms of actually improving as an adventurer against a worthy foe of equal level.

This can be a lot of fun for some people on it's own but after all is said and done, at the actual table the result of all that tweaking is a wash if the world scales along with you.

In previous editions, PC's got more hit points, better to-hit bonuses, better AC's (from gear) and more 'special' ie, magical abilities as they advanced in level.

In order to fight monsters with more hit points, better to-hit bonuses, better AC's, and more special ie, magical abilities.

It seems to me this has always been the case during the 20 or so years I've run D&D. It's not new.

 

[Raven Crowking]

25% of all humans in 1e have 1 hit point.

Are you sure about that? If memory serves, normal men in 1e have different types of hit die depending upon their occupation, even though they are all 1 HD. So, it might be more accurate to say that 1/6th of all non-adventuring types per 1e RAW have approximately 1 hp.

The 3e fix of giving normal men a sliding scale was a good one (although AFAICT it first appeared in 1e, in Dragon Magazine, in an article by Ed Greenwood statting up the blacksmith as the first "normal man NPC class").

But that still doesn't make them minions.

If you honestly think that my standard has anything to do with what you have described, then you don't grasp the debate well enough to merit my time.
If not, you are being intentionally deceitful.

Two great tastes that taste great together!

(This has been my experience as well.)


RC

 

[Hussar]

That's obvious. I suggest you just ignore me. Your posts have made it clear that I should ignore you.

If it makes you feel better, just think of me as an idiot. As someone just can't see how correct you are and can't see how incorrect I am. Someone who has many major mental stumbling blocks because I fundamentally misunderstand gaming systems.

joe b.

Hang on. Where is all this aggro coming from? Wow. First I get accused of beating my wife, and now this? Jeez.

Look, you claim that the difference is because there is now such a huge gulf between what hit points represent between editions. Again, I'm not sure how you can really say that. Just because the top got higher, why does that change the starting line?

You claim that you actively accounted for 1 hit point humanoids when you design your worlds. I have to accept that. You remove all 1 hit point humanoids from your world and ignore all the 1 hit point creatures and animals as not important enough to hurt your sense of verisimilitude.

Ok, fair enough.

My question to you is, why can you not simply do the same thing with minions?

 

[Raven Crowking]

In previous editions, PC's got more hit points, better to-hit bonuses, better AC's (from gear) and more 'special' ie, magical abilities as they advanced in level.

In order to fight monsters with more hit points, better to-hit bonuses, better AC's, and more special ie, magical abilities.

It seems to me this has always been the case during the 20 or so years I've run D&D. It's not new.

"You need to ensure that the DM understand how fundamentally everything has changed. And if he is unhappy with that, tell him nothing has changed!"

I am soooooo tired of that "reasoning".


RC

 

[ExploderWizard]

Yes and no.

Yes, if everything the PC's interact with in the world scales with them perfectly, then the bonuses will be a was. That's 100% true. However, in play, that's not going to happen. Or at least, it probably shouldn't. You (and I mean this in the non-specific you, not you personally) would design adventures using opponents and challenges that are going to run a range of levels both above and below the party's level.

I completely agree that it is a good thing for adventures to feature a variety of challenge levels. This helps keep adventures more unpredictable and less likely to become flat and boring (this applies to all editions).

This has nothing to do with actual improvement or a lack thereof. Facing lower level threats isn't a real measure of improvement, its picking on the little kids. Dealing more efficiently with threats on par with your ability is a better measure of overall improvement. Think of it like a batting average. If Joe the slugger has a .265 major league average and works hard to try and improve, facing single A pitchers and bragging about his new .375 average doesn't carry any weight in a major league game.

 

[Ariosto]

It seems to me this has always been the case during the 20 or so years I've run D&D.

In AD&D, it was entirely a matter of your (Mallus's) choice to ensure that all 10th-level characters were going around with +5 magic, much less that all the monsters they met were likewise equipped -- a mighty unusual circumstance in my experience! Of course, to get the full 4E effect would have required basically ignoring the monster ratings and combat matrices.

I suppose I could likewise ignore the guidelines and procedures in 4E and substitute the 1E rulebooks ... but then, when I wrote of how I played, I would not really be addressing 4E design features, would I?

 

[BryonD]

First I get accused of beating my wife, and now this? Jeez.

Obviously you were not familiar with the reference I was making.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Just taking a quick moment to apologize to the minions.

Earlier in this thread, in exasperation over how many folks (with overlap in this thread) seemed to be arguing that common sense shouldn't be used when adjudicating 4e rules, I simply eschewed all common sense in adjudicating minion rules.

It was a lame, and ultimately futile, gesture, so I apologize.


RC

 

[BryonD]

And 3e? Which I know is your preferred edition and I also know that you are heavily into world building with?

The term "preferred edition" still presumes D&D. 3E is one of my preferred systems. Or you could say D20 is. The fact that it is an edition of the D&D line is coincidental.

3E works great for me.