10 or better to hit period

[Flipguarder]

everyone wants a high stat so I don't see that as being a valid argument.

If that were true everyone would have a 18 in their main-stat pre-racial mod. I'm sorry if I came off as insulting, it was a rather crass statement.

But again I'd like to point out that there are some people with that (or the converse of being really hard to hit) character idea in mind that this will irk.

 

[Flipguarder]

Also this would ruin builds like the pacifist cleric. which doesn't care about damage at all. This would make their secondary stat their main stat (since there is no longer a reason to put points into wisdom.). giving ridiculous bonuses and penalties in combat at no cost compared to the current system.

 

[Alex319]

Here are my thoughts:

1. I don't understand how it is going to be simpler or more elegant, if you're basically going to be retooling every power or feat that gives attack and defense bonuses - which is a LOT of powers and feats. If you keep situational modifiers (which are very important to a lot of strategies) you're still going to be calculating things every round, so it's not going to be significantly easier. And the parts that you don't have to calculate every round, you could have precalculated anyway.

2. The solution of making some enemies harder to hit by giving penalties to attack them against certain defenses is functionally equivalent to the existing defense system. "-2 to attack Monster X with Fortitude attacks" is the same as "Fortitude defense is 2 higher than its other defenses." If you're going to go this route, I don't see what you're gaining by scrapping the existing attack/defense system.

3. Such a drastic change to the system is going to have lots of effects that you didn't anticipate. For example, how do alchemical items (that have fixed attack bonuses depending on the items' level) work with this? In the system as written, it would be very easy for mid- to high-level characters to stock up on low-level alchemical items and use them repeatedly, because the low attack bonus of the low-level items won't hurt them at all.

---

Here is my suggestion for solving the problems you identified without such a drastic change.

Primary Stats, Enhancement Bonuses, and "Math Problems":

Currently, the way it essentially works is that over a period of 29 levels (from 1st to 30th) players get about a 28 point increase in their attack bonus:

+15 from half level
+6 from enhancement bonuses
+4 from stat bumps
+3 from Expertise feats

You want to eliminate the need for the bottom three. So a way to do this is ban Expertise feats, don't do enhancement bonuses to attack, don't give stat bonuses to attack, and give +1 per level instead of +1/2 per level. Then you get +29 from level (only one point difference from above) from 1st to 30th. Also you have to add in a flat bonus to account for the stat bonus that players initially have at 1st level - let's say +3.

So the overall conclusion is to replace the half level, enhancement bonus, stat bonus, and Expertise feats with "3 + level". Then other feats, proficiency bonuses, and situational bonuses can still work.

For defenses it is a little more complicated. The progression for AC is as follows:

+15 from half level
+6 from enhancement bonuses
+6 from either:
-> Light armor users: +4 stat bumps, +2 masterwork
-> Heavy armor users: +6 masterwork.

=27 total over 29 levels

To replace this you can get rid of enhancement bonuses, masterwork bonuses, and stat mods and replace it with a "+ level" instead of "+1/2 level". But if you're going to get rid of the stat bonus to light armor you're going to have to give light armor users a static bonus to replace it otherwise light armor users are going to be seriously gimped vis-a-vis heavy armor users. Let's say you do the same thing as before and count the initial "stat bonus" as +3. Then we have overall:

Light armor users get 13+level+armor bonus AC
Heavy armor users get 10+level+armor bonus AC

The progression for the NADs (non-AC defenses) is as follows:

+15 from half level
+6 from neck slot items
+4 from stat bumps (if one of two primary stats bumped is for this NAD; +1 otherwise)
+4 from Paragon/Epic Defense feats

Total of 28 points over 29 levels, which assumes that you bump a stat for this NAD every time you get a chance to, and you take the Epic Defense feat. (Normally this doesn't all happen for all three NADs, which is why people report that it's hard to avoid getting hit in the NADs at higher levels)

So again we can roll all of that into one "+1 per level" bonus. But we still have to decide what to do about the initial stats. One idea is to just give everyone a fixed amount, say +3 again. Then we would have the NADs just be 13+level, plus any class and race bonuses and stuff. That would eliminate the "stat polarity" problem of people not wanting to put two good stats in the same defense category. But it would also eliminate one of the incentives to put stat points in non-primary skills in the first place. Would this work?

 

[eriktheguy]

Good idea. or give temp HP per tier if you have proficiency (mini toughness feats) Leather +2, hide +3, chain +5, scale +7, plate +8. Depends on if you want to subtract DR or just account for as a bonus to HP. Any other ideas on how to give armor some oumph?

Shields are more difficult...

Might as well make it a solid HP bonus while equipped. Players pretty much have armor on at all times.
Yeah, shields are more difficult. Resist all 1?

 

[Sadrik]

1. I don't understand how it is going to be simpler or more elegant, if you're basically going to be retooling every power or feat that gives attack and defense bonuses - which is a LOT of powers and feats.

I don't see any powers needing to be retooled. I see some feats going away but this is not unlike your presented house rules which are a significant up tick in complexity, not because they themselves are so complex but because these house rules are so simple (or course imo).

If you keep situational modifiers (which are very important to a lot of strategies) you're still going to be calculating things every round, so it's not going to be significantly easier. And the parts that you don't have to calculate every round, you could have precalculated anyway.

Yes you do keep situational modifiers. I didn't mean to make anyone think that these are also going away. They stay as I think modifiers for range and combat advantage etc. are important. I did note this earlier.

2. The solution of making some enemies harder to hit by giving penalties to attack them against certain defenses is functionally equivalent to the existing defense system. "-2 to attack Monster X with Fortitude attacks" is the same as "Fortitude defense is 2 higher than its other defenses." If you're going to go this route, I don't see what you're gaining by scrapping the existing attack/defense system.

This was just an idea to accommodate monsters with a very high defense. It may well be that another idea is better. However, looking at page 184 of the DMG. It shows that level+12 (level+14 for elites and solos) is standard for other defenses. I went through and checked the first 20 or so pages of the monster manual to look and see how often they passed that, they rarely did. So, this brings me to the conclusion that it would indeed be a rare monster ability that would actually grant a bonus to a defense. AC, I didn't check that. I think you overestimate how much this monster ability would actually be used.

3. Such a drastic change to the system is going to have lots of effects that you didn't anticipate. For example, how do alchemical items (that have fixed attack bonuses depending on the items' level) work with this? In the system as written, it would be very easy for mid- to high-level characters to stock up on low-level alchemical items and use them repeatedly, because the low attack bonus of the low-level items won't hurt them at all.

It does change a lot but it does fit rather nicely. The designers were looking to make a very tight game mathematically, this does just that. Albeit there are some quirks. As to the alchemical items, your right that does not seem right. I don't have the book so I could not do the research to figure out a solution. However I would hope that the low-level alchemical items are scaled in damage. Upper level characters using weak damage alchemical items as basically at-will attacks? I don't see the issue if that is case.

Are there any other subsystems that are similar? Or better are there any other subsystems that will also have problems?

Here is my suggestion for solving the problems you identified *snip*

Your suggestion really delves into the math and changes a lot of numbers around. This is a whole lot more simple and really fits in thematically with the 4e "save" system.

 

[Sadrik]

Might as well make it a solid HP bonus while equipped. Players pretty much have armor on at all times.

Yeah that could work, I am thinking that they would come back without the need of surges or anything during a short rest though. Basically readjust your straps and repair any minor dings etc.

Magic armor of course would add the enhancement bonus to the HP bonus.

Yeah, shields are more difficult. Resist all 1?

Wow, shields??? Resist all 1 doesn't feel right still.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I think you'd get similar results while having to change less if you simply removed scaling attacks/defenses entirely.

In other words, players always retain the same values they had at level 1 (barring something like a paragon bonus to attack). Monsters have their attack and defenses reduced by their level-1 (equivalent to a level 1 version).

You retain variety (the creature with high reflex but low fort) and you don't have to retool subsystems like weapons and armor.

 

[eriktheguy]

I think you'd get similar results while having to change less if you simply removed scaling attacks/defenses entirely.

In other words, players always retain the same values they had at level 1 (barring something like a paragon bonus to attack). Monsters have their attack and defenses reduced by their level-1 (equivalent to a level 1 version).

You retain variety (the creature with high reflex but low fort) and you don't have to retool subsystems like weapons and armor.

This

 

[Sadrik]

I think you'd get similar results while having to change less if you simply removed scaling attacks/defenses entirely.

In other words, players always retain the same values they had at level 1 (barring something like a paragon bonus to attack). Monsters have their attack and defenses reduced by their level-1 (equivalent to a level 1 version).

You retain variety (the creature with high reflex but low fort) and you don't have to retool subsystems like weapons and armor.

Yes but you don't get rid of the "stat polarity" issue in defenses. I would say this is an option and I don't want to discredit it because it could also be good.

One thing that "10+ hit", does better is it allows new players to acclimate to the system readily and more easily than dealing with the attack bonuses and defense DCs. Roll a die and perhaps add a situational bonus or power bonus and wallah, you know your result. It is easy and simple and goes right in line with many of the designer's assumptions.

Another thing, that someone brought up earlier as a potential problem I see as an overwhelming boon. There argument was that having to put a very high stat in your prime stat was good and spreading your stat points around to your other stats makes the game unbalanced. If at least a 16 goes in your prime stat (with a +2 = 18) all of the math seems to be based on characters having an 18. I'm sorry but I see the way it is set up now as forcing character classes to be very strongly pushed in one or two directions. Deviation from that norm makes you sub-optimal? All I see is that this rule will open your possibilities up a bit more. That is good.

As far as the +3 proficiency weapons becoming +2 not a big deal if you add another feature to the weapons or lower them from superior, increase there damage die or give them high crit or brutal etc.

I must admit that armor and shields need more than a retool to get them to fit here. They need to be rethought. I really like them being little mini toughness feats, I think that idea works well.

I have an idea for shields: You can give you and your opponent cover (-2 to you and opponents attacks) and you have +1 with total defense action for light shields, and heavy shields do the same but give +2 to total defense.

 

[BobTheNob]

One of the reasons I come this forum to look for new ideas for my own game. I look for things that will iron out the bumps and bring new facets to keep players interest. I understand your motivation and have toyed with similar ideas, but have consistantly found there is far too much system impact to contemplate, which is why I generally look for tweaks, not overhauls.

To OP, good luck, but if you want feedback (p.s. feedback only has value to the receiver. People who constantly retort against feedback and people who dont want it.) reign in this idea a little. Its a bit too far reaching.

Try more for de-integrating the impact of statistics on to-hit rolls. If you can do that you can flatten the system without major impact.