+1/level instead of +½ level?

[ggroy]

And go back to older editions? No thanks, not for me. Feel free to go for it if it suits you and yours, though.

For the most part, it does make things more like 2E AD&D and some older rpg rulesets from the 1980's.

In 2E AD&D, the to-hit d20 roll number for a hit from a fighter attacking a monster with a particular AC_desc (descending AC) is:

21 - level_fighter - AC_desc

(THAC0 for a fighter is 21 - level_fighter).

Changing the AC_desc from descending to ascending AC_asc (ie. AC_desc = 20-AC_asc), the to-hit d20 roll number for the same fighter attacking:

1 - level_fighter + AC_asc

In the case where AC_asc scales approximately as ~ level + AC, where AC is an "intrinsic" ascending AC stripped of the level dependency and/or magic enhancement, the to-hit d20 roll number for the same fighter attacking becomes:

1 + AC + (level_opponent - level_fighter)

which is almost identical to my previous proposal. (One could eliminate the 1, if AC_asc is redefined as being 21-AC_desc).

Now that I think about it more, this d20 to-hit target number of

1 + AC + (level_opponent - level_fighter)

is similar in to how things are done in the Chaosium Basic Roleplaying system, if the percentile dice mechanics are converted to a d20 for the Basic Roleplaying resistance table.

An older version of the Champions rpg Hero system also has a similar mechanic with a (level_opponent - level_fighter) type adjustment. In the Hero system, a hit is rolling 3d6 less than or equal to:

11 + (OCV_attacker - DCV_defender)

where OCV_attacker = attacker's DEX/3, DCV = defender's DEX/3.

 

[ggroy]

That also has its downside, but that's more of a subjective 'players like getting and using loot' comment than something substantial.

Wonder if this subjective "players like getting and using loot" perception, is a reason for the "inflation" of hit points in 4E.

 

[Tale]

Wonder if this subjective "players like getting and using loot" perception, is a reason for the "inflation" of hit points in 4E.

I thought the "inflation" of hit points was clearly to make level 1 less insta-gibby.

 

[ggroy]

I thought the "inflation" of hit points was clearly to make level 1 less insta-gibby.

I was thinking of inflation of hit points at all levels, for both player characters and monsters. Despite the inflation of hit points in monsters, in my experience DMing 4E so far at higher levels (ie. heroic, paragon, and early epic), the generic monsters of a particular level take around 2, 3, or 4 hits to kill by players of the same level. (This is assuming the players have magic weapons and armor of an appropriate level).

I suspect that 4E was designed such that generic non-minion monsters take on average around 2, 3, or 4 hits to kill, by players of the same level as the generic monsters. If the generic monster hit points were significantly lower, they could die very easily with 1 or 2 hits. The "inflation" of hit points, may very well be simply a byproduct of 4E's design goals.

 

[CovertOps]

Ah yes.

Never mind.

To clear up the 'math bug' that apparently makes the game unplayable at epic level and smooth stuff out.

That also has its downside, but that's more of a subjective 'players like getting and using loot' comment than something substantial.

Forget "math bug" and repeat after me....."the best damn feat in the game". If you don't take it you're vastly underpowered compared to those that do and that will be felt at the table. One of the things that 4e does very well is that every party member contributes almost equally to any given encounter (dailies aside). I have younger players at my table and I don't want to have anyone feeling like they are not contributing, or that they are substantially less powerful than their team mates. The only thing Expertise does is show if a given player has system mastery or not (or it's a feat "tax" and I despise that even more). I just don't need or want that kind of variance at my table. I've decided against implementing it this way however as I'm just going to use the adventure tools to adjust monster defenses on my side of the screen so I don't have to mess with PC's not being able to use characters as printed from character builder.

ggory:
Defenses follow this approximate pattern:

Fort/Will/Ref: 10 + level + (0 - 9)
This range doesn't change at higher levels although you can pick up the defense feats (+2 @ heroic and +4 at epic) for any of these, so this shifts the range from 0 - 9 to 2 - 11 for example and is mostly good for boosting that defense that started at a +0 and lost 3 points because if was the stat pair you didn't bump while leveling so 0 - 3 + 6 = +3

AC: 10 + level + (5 - 10)
The 5 at the low end of this can go up if the player spends feats along the way to get better armor such as cloth -> leather -> hide chain -> scale -> plate no shield -> light shield -> heavy shield or 2-weapon defense with a weapon with the defensive property.

Best examples (@ level 1) would be:
Fort/Will/Ref: 10 + 5 (20 starting stat) + 2 (class bonus) + 2 (race bonus) *
AC (Paladin or Fighter with feat): 10 + 8 (plate) + 2 (shield)
*Note that I'm not sure there is a race with a +2 bonus or that you can align it correctly with a class bonus so I'm not positive if this is even possible. Certainly you can get a +1 racial bonus such as Human so maybe it's just 0 - 10

I would not want to change these variations because that makes characters different, but NOT better than one another. Some will have higher Fort and others might have a higher Will, but if you get rid of the variation you may as well throw out the whole system and just replace the to-hit roll with (11 +/- level difference) and forget the modifiers.

 

[ggroy]

I would not want to change these variations because that makes characters different, but NOT better than one another. Some will have higher Fort and others might have a higher Will, but if you get rid of the variation you may as well throw out the whole system and just replace the to-hit roll with (11 +/- level difference) and forget the modifiers.

In practice, D&D style combat (and some non-combat skills) can be boiled down to rolling a d20 greater than or equal to:

11 + (level_target - level_player) + (mod_target - mod_player)

where "mod_target" ("mod_player") depends on the respective "intrinsic" properties of the target (player) after the level dependency, magic enhancement, etc ... are stripped out. The "mod_" can be armor, weapon proficiency, defenses, etc ... or any constant properties which have not been "stripped out".

(This is the same as rolling: d20 + level_player + mod_player

versus a target of:

11 + level_target + mod_target).

In your particular scheme we've been discussing, I get the impression that you may be looking at eliminating the (mod_target - mod_player) part for the primary stat related stuff of a player and monster, such that the mod_player part is around the same magnitude (or equal) of mod_target.

EDIT: I can maybe see your motivation partially. A lot of stuff in the (mod_target - mod_player) part will subtract itself out. The case where the (mod_target - mod_player) doesn't give exactly zero is for example, when the player uses an action dependent on a secondary stat vs. a target's defense which is dependent on a primary or tertiary stat. I'll have to think more about this.

 

[Angellis_ater]

Well, the basic idea for this was simply an observation (ie that bonuses accrue at a rate of almost exactly +1/level) and a question of how that would work, looking towards the expertise of other people here on the boards.

I've been given a fair trounsing and a fair amount of good evidence why removing Ability Increases might be a bad idea, especially for classes with important secondary attributes.

So, out of the +28 I counted up in the first post, 4 comes from Attribute increases. That leaves us at +24 over 30 levels. Is it still viable to change to a +1/level system? I'd prefer something with an easier application than saying +1 at every level except X (which is what one COULD do).

---

Problemwise my game suffers a little from how important the bonuses on items are over the "effects" as well as The Grind. I was considering how the above solution might perhaps help with these two "problems". So the above is not meant AS a solution, but I was rather contemplating that it might, in effect, help.

 

[ValhallaGH]

Problemwise my game suffers a little from how important the bonuses on items are over the "effects" as well as The Grind. I was considering how the above solution might perhaps help with these two "problems". So the above is not meant AS a solution, but I was rather contemplating that it might, in effect, help.

Reducing the power of the enhancment bonus by removing it from the attack bonus formula will help with the enhancement vs. effect issue. Enhancements in 4E often dictate how the effects work (subtle weapons are just one example), but you've still started by removing the bonus from the attack calculation.

Fixing the Grind issue is a multi-part problem. Part one, players need to hit with their big damage powers. Part two, PCs need to bring a lot of pain to their powers; this requires a certain level of system mastery. Part three, the PCs need to learn how to work together to maximize what they can do (or at least not get in each other's way). Part four, when a PC chooses to perform some stunt or effect based upon the environment, the DM needs to make it worthwhile; generally equivalent to an Encounter or Daily attack power (determination based upon availability of the option).
There are other parts but I'm blanking on them, so I'll leave with that.

Good luck.

 

[CovertOps]

In practice, D&D style combat (and some non-combat skills) can be boiled down to rolling a d20 greater than or equal to:

11 + (level_target - level_player) + (mod_target - mod_player)

My system makes this equation look like this:

11 + (level_target - level_player) + (mod_target - constant)

It only removes the mod_player part of this so that variations in creature types still make a difference. e.g. Soldiers have higher defenses, brutes low AC - high Fort, Artillery high Ref etc.

 

[ggroy]

My system makes this equation look like this:

11 + (level_target - level_player) + (mod_target - constant)

It only removes the mod_player part of this so that variations in creature types still make a difference. e.g. Soldiers have higher defenses, brutes low AC - high Fort, Artillery high Ref etc.

I think more accurately, you may be thinking of:

mod_target = constant + r_mod_target

mod_player = constant + r_mod_player.

where r_mod_ is the remainder left after the constant part is subtracted out.

For example r_mod_player could be situational modifiers such as +2 from charging, flanking, buffs, etc ... while r_mod_target is related to AC, fortitude, reflex, will.

In the (mod_target - mod_player) part, the "constant" parts of the player and monster cancel one another out.

r_mod_player may very well be zero for many run of the mill type situations. It could be negative for some situations, such as trying to attack in the dark.