All Fours: the Rule of Fours? the Game of Fours?

[steeldragons]

You aren't taking attack bonuses into account, I think.

I'm not sure. In what way does that have anything to do with rolling above a target's AC? If you have an attack bonus, it applies when you make the attack...if that puts you over the target AC, then bully.

I wouldn't place a limit on AC (except the one due to available options), just have 20 always hit no matter the AC.

Ok...I suppose. But then what about the characters who load up on magic armor and shields and bonuses and skills and says, triumphantly, "My AC is 24!" What purpose does that serve when the die only goes up to 20?...and yes, 20 always hits no matter what.

Also, critical hits? Critical misses/fumbles?

Up to the DM. Or a suggestion of "double damage" for natural 20s. Other "Critical hits/misses/fumbles" effects might be added/suggested into the next tier, I guess. But "20 always hits", "1 always misses." covers things sufficiently for now, I think.

So the idea is that first everyone shoots in initiative order, before anyone slashes with their swords?

That is, indeed, the idea. Provided they had their bows/missiles "ready" at the onset of the round.

At what point would moves happen?

Yeeeeahhhh....ummm. Whenever makes sense in the round? There wouldn't be (as far as I'm thinking thus far) separate "move" actions. If we need rules for this kind of thing...how about 10' within the round is given, more than that requires some kind of Dex. check?

What if someone moves from line-of-fire before ranged or spell attack?

If they have the Initiative and that's what they do...then, sure, they moved behind cover before they could get shot at.

Maybe this should be handled by the circumstances? If only one side is aware, they go first, otherwise some kind of opposed spot checks... In any case, d20 is better, since you are less likely to roll the same number.

Ok, well yes there will be "Surprise" chances/rounds. I just didn't think of that in the posting for straight on combat.

I really would like to stay away from "anything you roll for, I can roll better/too." Like "opposed spot checks." (in fact "spot checks" in general just give me the willies).

Naturally, there will be instances in play where these make sense and the DM can throw one in. But to hardcode it into rules...simply is not possible. You can't have a rule for every conceivable circumstance in a game/combat.

As for rolling d20's for initiative instead of d6...I have no problem with that. d20s it is.

I think this should be the default and each-round an option. It's simpler and requires less rolling.

Good point. I like it. Consider it swapped.

... at low levels.

OTOH, hp increases fast enough that everyone can soon survive a few rounds. Basically, having p(hit) be high just means the fight will be less random, since you can assume attacks hit. That may make it seem more of a grind down to 0 hp without attack rolls mattering all that much.

I'mmmm not sure what this means/is saying. Because a PCs chance to hit is high the fight will be less random? Ok..yes, I guess. Certain PCs will be able to hit (and cause damage) more often than others...which, to my mind, makes sense/is as it should be. But I don't think/see how that will lead the game to seem like a "grind down without attacks mattering all that much."

--SD

 

[Ed_Laprade]

Well, it isn't exactly quiet either...

SCA 2008 Darach Armored Finals Sven vs Rhys - YouTube

All that noise was from the plates rubbing together. I never said that plate was quiet, just mail. Its even quieter than leather, if the leather isn't properly maintained.

 

[Ed_Laprade]

My head, too much info... it explodes!

Some comments on the few things that stuck in my mind.

A last note on armor. The real problem with mail and plate is that they require padding of some sort to prevent one's skin from being rubbed off. Which would be no big deal, except that this causes the body to overheat, which causes obvious problems. Which is one of the reasons that training in armor was required. But I'd ignore that as most rules do, because its fiddly and not much fun. (And I had the mail doesn't clank remark in parentheses because it hadn't been brought up... yet. )

Bows can shoot more than once a turn, yes. Crossbows, no.

I like the rules for AC. Would prefer the '20 always hits' rather than capping it at 19. Same difference, but it feels better to me.

No crits, at least for the basic set, and only an option for the others. They feel wonderful when the characters do it, but the odds way favor the opposition getting them.

Initiative: I prefer a D10 myself, but a D20 is ok. (Better than a D6 IMO.) And I agree that going by sides makes things easier on the GM. Which is always a good thing!

I'm sure there are other things I ought to comment on, but can't remember what they are.

 

[SSquirrel]

We start at the very beginning....it's a very good place to start...with, essentially, the Basic game.

4 Races
Human
Elf
Dwarf
Halfling

4 Classes
Cleric
Fighter
Magic-user
Thief

Reasonably standard

Humans may be any one of the four classes.
Elves may be: (4) Fighter, Magic-user, Thief or Ftr/MU
Dwarves may be: (4) Cleric, Fighter, Thief or Ftr/Cle
Halflings may be: (4) Cleric, Fighter, Thief or Ftr/Thf

I think this all goes back to a certain flavor, some might say "grittiness", of the game. Offering players options without being endless options/option "bloat."

I always hated the level and class limits in older editions. I think racial bonuses do a good enough job of siloing people toward certain classes as it goes. Obviously if you are trying for that BECMI/AD&D feel, limit away. Just not my preference.

option 3: 4 Abilities (roled in the same 4d6 method as either options 1 or 2, gotta keep those 4's reoccurring
Strength: a combo of physical strength and Constitution. Important for Fighters.
Agility: Dexterity, reflexes, balance, important for thieves or anyone using/specializing in missle fire.
Mental: a combo of Intelligence and Wisdom, essential for any/all spellcasters for the working of magic, capacity for learning languages and new skills, etc...
Persona: for those who like having a "Charisma" score/using noncombat skills that may be better/more outgoing than their "real life" personality.

Many otehr games use agility as the "to hit" stat and that has always made more sense to me. Being strong doesn't mean you're any good at hand/eye coordination. Let strength add to damage. If Clerics still have Turn Undead or such, I assume it will use Persona. With only 4 stats, it is even more important to make sure people should hope for a primary and secondary stat. B/c with the initial 4, everyone only really ahs reason to pump one stat. All the rest can be dumps. Actually, if HP is based off Strength, everyone will want that, but the Fighter doesn't need anything else. Unless you make Dex the melee and missile "to hit" stat.

You start with 40% in each and gain 40% per level to place as you like to allow players to tailor their "thief" as an "Acrobat" (self-explanatory) or "Cat Burlgar" (higher Stealth and Thievery, let's say) or "Street Urchin" (pour it all into Thievery with a lil left over for Sneak Attacks?) or whatever other roguish archetype you like.

40% in each of 4 stats and 40% to spread around per level gives you maxed out and 20 bonus points by level 10. Not sure what your intended max level is here, but that seems like not very long to succeed at everything.

[Optional] Alignment (borrowing from 4e, as I understand it and imposing my own general ethical views, of course)

I personally think alignment is completely unneeded except for the question of divine characters. Of course, if there is no alignment, the gods may have certain aspects that people may think of as good or evil, but their worshipers would be considered based on their actions. Altho if you worship a god of plagues, people may assume you're even even if your goal in life is to study the plagues to help make sure they are controlled. Only the enemies of your gods suffer them



Overall not a bad start (trying to fix dinner so I can't read the rest of this right now and you may address some of this, but a quick scroll thru the first page didn't have many people dispute much from this initial post, so I thought I'd give this up for now. Good luck!


EDIT: Oh yeah, if you're thinking about weapon proficiencies, you could do something different. You could based weapon damage by class. Like a Wizard doesn't do more than 1d4 w/melee weapons, it doesn't matter what he's using. Kind of like Jackie Chan beats people up as well with a baseball bat, a club, a chair or a ladder heh. Maybe allow characters to pick something specific every so many levels that they specialize in a new weapon or spell (type of spell if you want to be more broad). So maybe Rogues standardly do 1d6 damage, but they can choose at L4 to specialize in the dagger and apparently hey must have mastered some pain points and weak spots, b/c now they can stab people with that dagger for 1d8. Plus whatever they can do with Sneak Attack. Weapons should just be flavor and that also allows them to pick up anything else and do decently well with it. Once they start having weapons specializations, they will prefer those, but they won't suck w/the others.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

Two quick thoughts:

Defenses... why not do four, tied to each stat:

Fortitude from Strength
AC from Dex
Will from Presence

and Magic Defense from Int...
which automatically means Mages are better at shrugging off spells than other classes, clerics are better at avoiding domination, rogues are harder to hit, and fighters can soak up damage...



The other thought.. with bows and crossbows, there is a file floating around this board called 'discussionofbows' that goes in depth in bows and crossbows. I like it very much
Basically it rates both by a strength rating and the damage is based on the lower of the users strength or the bows strength. Crossbows always use the crossbows strength, but the users strength determines how much it takes to reload...

 

[Stormonu]

But, this does make me think, instead of making Dex. relate to AC...using one's Prime Ability bonus. So Fighters can ass their Str. bonus (their strong/fortified enough to "take a blow" without damage), Thieves use their Dex. (fast/agile enough to avoid blows), MUs use their Int. (smart enough to figure how to evade an incoming attack) and Clerics have the Presence ("wisdom" to know when to back up or duck, etc. to avoid blows.)

Strictly for AC, mind you, the ability bonuses to their various Defense(s) stand. Str. applied to Fort, Dex. applied to Ref., Int. and/or Presence (whichever is higher? So clerics and mu's may be equally good at avoiding/overcoming magical effect?) applied to Will.

Keeps/makes the Prime Ability an even more important attribute for the success of the character, this time as regards their safety vs. an increase to their offensive capabilities.

Just a thought inspired by your suggestion...might be bollocks. But I'm getting that "makes sense" (and easy enough to understand/apply) feeling.

I'm a bit leery of this. When I first saw it done in 4E I thought it was a great idea. However, it quickly became apparent that it became a min/maxxer's trick to dump all other ability scores and just take feats or whatnot that used the prime ability for everything.

Fighter: I'll take an 18 in Strength and a 6 in everything else, then a feat that lets me use my Strength modifier for Fortitude ("I've been working out"), a feat to do the same for Reflex ("I can hurl my body out of the way with more ease"), Will ("I'm intimidating and not easy to dominate!") and AC ("I block all their blows with my strongly held sword!").

If we can avoid that kind of syndrome, I'm all for being able to use your prime ability for say, ONE other defense or perhaps for attacks.

 

[SSquirrel]

Before this 2nd giant reply gets started, it looks like some of my points I made in my initial post have already been addressed, so ignore anything that no longer applies


Oh yeah, warning, ultra massive post, but I'm all caught up now at least heh.

Bonuses (assuming an 18 max Ability score)
Strength/Body (Str.):
Dexterity/Agility (Dex.):
Intelligence/Mind (Int.):
Presence/Heart (Pre.):
(Plus the bits about 15-18 being +1-+4)

I like starting the bonuses earlier like was done starting w/3E. Subtract 10, divide by 2, round down. So 12-13 is +1, etc. Otherwise people who have only middling characters are very marginal while someone who gets lucky at all outclasses them severely. Making the scaling spread out a bit more reduces the differences in someone who has an 18 and a 13.

Also, if you follow my above recommendation to make all melee and ranged attacks Dex based, you could rename that stat to Accuracy or Deftness or something. Would still cover stealthiness and such too.

For armors, I'm thinking:
Leather=base AC of 4
some form of armor better than Leather but less than Chain= base AC 8
Chain=base AC 12
Plate=base AC 16 (and negates Dex. bonuses to AC)

Shield adds +1.

OR (for those who like more math)
Leather= +4 to the AC 2 base (effective AC=6?)
next armor= +8 (effective AC=10)
Chain= +12 (effective AC=14)
Plate= +16 (effective starting AC=18 but still negates Dex. modifiers)

Dial your numbers back or having a shield is a complete waste of time. If you already have +16 from plate, you add only 6% to your AC by adding a shield. If plate gives +8, you gain 12.5%. Makes it much more desirable. If you want multiple shields, I would say Small shield +1, Large shield +2, Tower shield +4. Tower shields aren't really that useful for making attacks tho, they're really for hiding behind when a dragon is breathing fire on you or a flight of arrows is coming your way. Or Small and Large shields, +1 and +2. Bucklers in recent editions only help +1 against 1 attack per round so they are extremely limited.


Regarding stat bonuses, if you want to keep things based on 4, every 4 points they get a +1, so an 8 would be +2, an 18 would be +4. Allow them to add a +1 to a single stat every 2 levels (which means they could gain a +1 bonus climbing from 16 to 20 in 8 levels of time) and just make sure you are counting on the fact that anyone in the game would probably have at least a +2 to hit something just based on their initial stat. It does advance more slowly than the 3E/4E method tho, which some might like.

Strength spells - Evocation/Necromancy
Dexterity spells - Illusion/Abjuration
Charisma/Presence spells - Enchantment/Conjuration
Intelligence spells - Transmutation/Divination

I'm not a fan of this idea. As things stand Fighters really only care about one stat as it is, casters would have some serious MAD trying to keep up w/all 4 stats. Also, this means if you want to cast any damage spells, you want to stat yourself like a Fighter, which makes no sense to me.

Tiny weapons (1d4):
Unarmed (nonlethal)

Small weapons (1d6):
Sap (nonlethal)

Ok these first 2 could make sense.

Medium weapons (1d8):
Club (nonlethal)

Large weapons (1d12):
Greatclub (nonlethal)

I'm sorry, if I bust a baseball bat or a big log over your head, you could very easily die. Broken ribs puncture the lung, etc. Damage types is just complicating things. Damage type only matters if you are going to do things like X weapon type doesn't deal full damage to Y monster or you want to say things like edged weapons aren't as good against Plate armor as Piercing weapons, etc. I thought we were moving away from complication tho.

It would be great if those attacks could be resolved just as a normal attack, but against Ref. defense.

Welcome to 4E

AC: AC is one's Defense against taking a "damage causing direct hit."
It is determined as follows: Base AC determined by class, + Armor (and/or shield) worn + Prime Ability modifier (+ any relevant Skill bonus and/or Magic bonus from enchanted armor, shields, items, spells, etc.)

Base AC
Fighters: 4
Thieves: 3
Clerics: 2
Magic-users: 1

Armor
Unarmored: +2 (base AC for non-adventurers/PCs, so a roll of 1 still/always misses. But pretty much, Farmer Bob is not skilled at engaging in combat/avoiding attacks.)
Leather armor: +4
Scale armor: +6
Chainmail: +8
Plate armor: +10

Shields add +1

*AC cannot exceed 19 (even with magical bonuses). A roll of 20 always hits/does damage.

So that means a starting fighter at L1 in plate can have a 15 AC. give him a magic shield and a magic ring and he has no more incentive to improve. Also, I don't think the strict 19 limit is needed. 1 always misses, 20 always hits (or even crits). Your enemy has a +7 to hit. You could be wearing magic plate, w/a magic shield and a magic ring and he will still hit you on a 13 or higher. I know you want to keep numbers lower, but personally stat increases and new feats and such are a couple of the more obvious ways to denote character growth and it seems like some classes would quickly hit a ceiling, leaving no further reason for them to try and better themselves.

(Optional thought: if a PC has a bow/missle nocked/ready at the start of the round, they can reload/get off a second attack at the end of the same round? Excluding crossbows.)Roll damage as necessary.

Crossbows should be more damaging to make up for their lack of ability to fire quickly, otherwise people will never take it. So shortbow 1d4, longbow 1d6. Light crossbow 1d8, heavy crossbow 1d10.

Additional Initative Option: Roll once at the beginning of combat (PCs go first or the DM goes first) and just go back and forth til the battle is ended?...instead of rolling each round? I know I played in games like this, but my default for games I DM is to roll each round.

This is simpler and less time consuming. If people hold actions to change their initiative order that is one thing, but roll once and go from there is far easier. Esp if you are the on in charge of the initiative board like I usually am

To Hit
d20. You must roll higher than your target's AC. Rolling the exact opposing AC indicates a "miss/no damage" as does rolling under the target AC.

Yes, ACs are generally going to be LOW in this game so "hits" are going to happen a LOT! (AC for a Fighter with 16 Str, wearing Chainmail and a shield would have an AC of: 4 (class base) + 2 (Str. bonus) +8 (chainmail) +1 (shield) = 15....Or does that seem too high/need adjusting?

If damage will happen a lot, people need a lot more health. Add their Strength to their starting hit points. There will need to be some pretty significant healing in the game too unless you are aiming for a very gritty game where people die a lot. It seems reasonable that the guy who is wearing that much armor is only hit 1/4 of the time, but I think you could make this simpler by making class starting ACs either +4 or +2.

Mages already can't wear armor (or can they?) so they're going to be super easy to hit. Making them have low AC and low HP just brings back all the things I really hated about old editions. Cuz my group always wanted a wizard, but didn't wanna play one themselves. I loved playing wizards, but I'm far happier playing a Wizard in 4E than I ever was in basic or AD&D where a housecat could kill you if you had rolled poorly on starting HPs

I'm thinking "Weapon type v. armor type" be an "Optional rule/method" of doing/adding/subtracting damage to be introduced in the next tier/set. For now/beginners, just hit 'em and do damage.

Damage vs armor was dropped for 2E for a reason. If I never see that again it may be too soon

I'm not sure. In what way does that have anything to do with rolling above a target's AC? If you have an attack bonus, it applies when you make the attack...if that puts you over the target AC, then bully.

Ok...I suppose. But then what about the characters who load up on magic armor and shields and bonuses and skills and says, triumphantly, "My AC is 24!" What purpose does that serve when the die only goes up to 20?...and yes, 20 always hits no matter what.

If your enemy has a +7 to attack and you have a 22 AC, he will hit on 1/4 of his attacks. If you have a 12, he will hit on 3/4 o his attacks. That is probably a death blow for a L1 Wizard and even a L1 Fighter would be really hurting the way you have things setup currently. If they have a 24 and you have a 7, you hit on an 18 or higher. He has sacrificed chances to improve his damage or force of will thru magic items and focused on protection. That shouldn't be a detriment to him.

Up to the DM. Or a suggestion of "double damage" for natural 20s. Other "Critical hits/misses/fumbles" effects might be added/suggested into the next tier, I guess. But "20 always hits", "1 always misses." covers things sufficiently for now, I think.

Agreed. Double damage should only apply to the base damage, so before they add in their various bonuses. So if a dagger does 1d4, a crit from the dagger would deal 2d4 plus whatever not (1d4+a bunch)x2. I'm assuming you were already planning for it to work this way as that is how the game has worked for awhile now, but just clarifying

Ok, well yes there will be "Surprise" chances/rounds. I just didn't think of that in the posting for straight on combat.

You can't have a rule for every conceivable circumstance in a game/combat.

Surprise rounds are easy. Anyone who was surprised doesn't get an action while the others all get one. If you are adding a stat modifier to AC, remove it in surprise situations. Or apply a flat AC penalty when they're surprised. Maybe -2AC and +20% chance to opposing Sneak Attacks if surprised, as an example.

That 2nd line is proof you didn't play 3E heh. They sure as heck tried to have a rule for everything, altho they did stop short of some of the excess of Rolemaster heh.

Fighter: I'll take an 18 in Strength and a 6 in everything else, then a feat that lets me use my Strength modifier for Fortitude ("I've been working out"), a feat to do the same for Reflex ("I can hurl my body out of the way with more ease"), Will ("I'm intimidating and not easy to dominate!") and AC ("I block all their blows with my strongly held sword!").

He just spent 4 feats to do all that tho, so now he hasn't been able to grab Expertise or Shield Bashing or whatever tasty fun he could pick up w/his first 4 feats. He's very defensively minded tho so if he can give the enemies a reason to keep attacking him, he'll do well. Of course, if he's really hard to hit and has nothing to entice the enemy to attack him, they'll ignore him.

 

[Stormonu]

All that noise was from the plates rubbing together. I never said that plate was quiet, just mail. Its even quieter than leather, if the leather isn't properly maintained.

Ah, my bad, I thought you were referring to plate mail; it wasn't until later I noticed you were referring to chain mail.

 

[steeldragons]

Sorry to be MIA for a few, there. Was in London for the weekend and the hotel's wifi was non-functional.

Lots to go through here and take into account. Will be weeding through and posting here again, prob. tomorrow (Tues.).

Thanks for all of the suggestions though.
Keep it comin'.
--SD

 

[steeldragons]

I'm a bit leery of this. When I first saw it done in 4E I thought it was a great idea. However, it quickly became apparent that it became a min/maxxer's trick to dump all other ability scores and just take feats or whatnot that used the prime ability for everything.

If we can avoid that kind of syndrome, I'm all for being able to use your prime ability for say, ONE other defense or perhaps for attacks.

Well, as much as I would like to make a min/maxer free game, people who like to play that way will find a way to play that way. you are correct, though, that we should attempt to minimize any loopholes for them to exploit.

I really like Hassasin's breakdown of Abilty score bonuses/penalties. Basically, it means taking Ability modifiers out of AC entirely. Which I don't really have a problem with. It'll just make starting ACs even lower, again, which I have no problem with. There could always be "Skills" for each class created that would allow a PC to apply a certain ability bonus to their AC, separately. But nothing standard/acrosst he board. I think that could work pretty well.

I like starting the bonuses earlier like was done starting w/3E. Subtract 10, divide by 2, round down. So 12-13 is +1, etc.

This was something Hassassin suggested a bit ago and, while I understand 3e players will enjoy this, for me it seems unnecessarily complicated...too much [unnecessary] math! Maybe it's not and it's just my general ignorance of the system.

Otherwise people who have only middling characters are very marginal while someone who gets lucky at all outclasses them severely. Making the scaling spread out a bit more reduces the differences in someone who has an 18 and a 13.

I dunno. I think someone who has an 18 SHOULD be different than someone with a 13. And, I think a maxing bonus of +4 makes sense, for this lil' theory/exercise/method of "All Fours". Which, for better or worse makes the lowest bonuses stop at 15.

In theory, I suppose I should make the penalties begin at 10 then (keeping things in increments of 4). But that strikes me as just too high, too mean. So, 8 down to 4 works for penalties and 9 through 14 are just "average" (in the safe zone of no penalties but no bonuses either). Seems to me, one can have a perfectly awesome character with no bonuses whatsoever. Do you acquire skills or hit as hard as some other people? No. You don't/won't. But that doesn't make the character "bad" or "unplayable".

A Fightr with a 13 Strength can be every bit as interesting a character as one with 16. Yes, he might hit less often (bonuses or no bonuses, that's really up to the dice except for a few specific numbers- 1 thru 4 of them- each time). No, he won't do as much damage. So, maybe he takes on a position as a "back up" fighter? Chooses to specialize in missle weaponry? Or becomes the party's strategic mastermind? Or concentrates his Skills into things that WILL allow him a bonus for hitting and/or damage.

Also, if you follow my above recommendation to make all melee and ranged attacks Dex based, you could rename that stat to Accuracy or Deftness or something. Would still cover stealthiness and such too.

I do like the Dex controlling to hit across the board, but in the interest of "balancing" out each ability with the rest, I think we will have to leave it missile attacks only.

Dial your numbers back or having a shield is a complete waste of time. If you already have +16 from plate, you add only 6% to your AC by adding a shield. If plate gives +8, you gain 12.5%. Makes it much more desirable. If you want multiple shields, I would say Small shield +1, Large shield +2, Tower shield +4. Tower shields aren't really that useful for making attacks tho, they're really for hiding behind when a dragon is breathing fire on you or a flight of arrows is coming your way. Or Small and Large shields, +1 and +2. Bucklers in recent editions only help +1 against 1 attack per round so they are extremely limited.

Yeh I think multiple shields will be for a later tier/set of the game. And for now, as for having a shield being a waste of time, I think any/all PCs everywhere who ever "missed" or perhaps, more importantly, were missed by their opponent by rolling "1" less than they needed would disagree.

Regarding stat bonuses, if you want to keep things based on 4, every 4 points they get a +1, so an 8 would be +2, an 18 would be +4. Allow them to add a +1 to a single stat every 2 levels (which means they could gain a +1 bonus climbing from 16 to 20 in 8 levels of time) and just make sure you are counting on the fact that anyone in the game would probably have at least a +2 to hit something just based on their initial stat. It does advance more slowly than the 3E/4E method tho, which some might like.

Hmmm. I dunno. Again, we're getting really crunchy/mathy here. I don't mind the idea that characters improve/refine their abilities (somehow) as they gain levels...but I'm not sure about this.

I'm sorry, if I bust a baseball bat or a big log over your head, you could very easily die. Broken ribs puncture the lung, etc. Damage types is just complicating things.

That's what I'm thinking. And given that a "Monk" won't be introduced until the next tier, I really have no problem with leaving out "unarmed attacks". Or make a general comment that unarmed combat (i.e. a bar brawl, wrestling match, etc.) just does a, say, d4 (?) of temporary damage.

Maybe some other one-line "rule" for knocking people unconscious, non-lethal "subdual" damage, etc.

Damage type only matters if you are going to do things like X weapon type doesn't deal full damage to Y monster or you want to say things like edged weapons aren't as good against Plate armor as Piercing weapons, etc. I thought we were moving away from complication tho.

Yes. We are. So I'm not going to be doing all of that for the beginning player. A chart for "optional inclusion" in the "Expert/Advanced/Champion" set will suffice for me on Weapon/Damage type v. Armor type.

So that means a starting fighter at L1 in plate can have a 15 AC.

Well, no anymore...if we're taking Ability score bonuses out of the picture. Fighter starts with AC 4. Put him in plate, +10. Starting AC of 14.

give him a magic shield and a magic ring and he has no more incentive to improve.

Assuming +1 enchantment on each of those and +1 for the shield, yeah, he'd be almost maxed out for "defense"...AC 17. Not bad.

Also, I don't think the strict 19 limit is needed.

Yes, that seems to be consensus. I'll take out any mention of an AC limit...though realistically, to borrow your +7 example and making it +8 (assuming the extreme in melee example: someone with 18 Str., +4, and a +4 weapon=+8 bonus to hit). SO the unspoken "max" for AC would be 27 (a roll of 19 + 8, since a roll of 20 always hits.)

1 always misses, 20 always hits (or even crits).

Yes.

Your enemy has a +7 to hit. You could be wearing magic plate, w/a magic shield and a magic ring and he will still hit you on a 13 or higher.

Ummm. Lessee...assuming the extreme: Fighter AC 4, Plate +10 with a +4 (to establish the absolute highest possible within this Beginning set) enchantment, +1 for a Shield with another +4 enchantment, and a ring of protection +4...for the sake of "maxing out", let's throw on a cloak of protection +4 also...soooo absolute final highest possible AC 31. (I stand corrected from my assertion up-post that the highest AC would be 27...though, I guess that is the highest possible roll. Hm. Conundrum.)

SO, to use your example of an attacker with +7...no they would never be able to hit this fella...unless they rolled a natural 20. 5% chance on every throw of the die.

I know you want to keep numbers lower, but personally stat increases and new feats and such are a couple of the more obvious ways to denote character growth and it seems like some classes would quickly hit a ceiling, leaving no further reason for them to try and better themselves.

I hope that is not the case...and I don't necessarily think that is true...Yes, someoen might max out in one thing or area...that doesn't mean the character has nowhere left to grow. That's up to the player. If all they are looking for is how to get the absolute highest best numbers...then chances are this would not be a system/game for them.

Crossbows should be more damaging to make up for their lack of ability to fire quickly, otherwise people will never take it. So shortbow 1d4, longbow 1d6. Light crossbow 1d8, heavy crossbow 1d10.

I believe, my inital statting out of the weapons list has crossbows at d8, long and short bows each did d6 (yes, whether you carry a long or short bow is really only a "flavor" thing for your PC...and allows dwarves and halflings to have effective archers.). The d4 missile weapon was a Sling.

This is simpler and less time consuming. If people hold actions to change their initiative order that is one thing, but roll once and go from there is far easier. Esp if you are the on in charge of the initiative board like I usually am

Yes. Again, seems to be consensus. So the roll will be d20 (or d10 or whatever d you prefer). Highest side (PCs or DM) goes first and you just go back and forth from there. What order the PCs go in is really up to them/or the DM and what they're trying to do.

If damage will happen a lot, people need a lot more health. Add their Strength to their starting hit points. There will need to be some pretty significant healing in the game too unless you are aiming for a very gritty game where people die a lot. It seems reasonable that the guy who is wearing that much armor is only hit 1/4 of the time, but I think you could make this simpler by making class starting ACs either +4 or +2.

What do other people think about this? HP= Class max base + full Strength Abilitiy score...then +Str. Ability bonus if any?

Mages already can't wear armor (or can they?) so they're going to be super easy to hit.

No, they can't. And yes, they will be easy to hit. Hence the need to travel with fighters and clerics and thieves...and, frankly, the magic=user who gets in the front line....well, he deserves to get hit/killed.

Making them have low AC and low HP just brings back all the things I really hated about old editions. Cuz my group always wanted a wizard, but didn't wanna play one themselves. I loved playing wizards, but I'm far happier playing a Wizard in 4E than I ever was in basic or AD&D where a housecat could kill you if you had rolled poorly on starting HPs

Well, that's part of the reason I'm letting all 1st level characters start out with max hit points. Something I've done in "houserule" for years and years. But people are still fragile.

I had no problem with the MU's low AC and low HP. Play smart. If your players were "afraid" to play an MU because their numbers weren't going to be "good enough"...then it's just as well they didn't play one.

If your enemy has a +7 to attack and you have a 22 AC, he will hit on 1/4 of his attacks. If you have a 12, he will hit on 3/4 o his attacks. That is probably a death blow for a L1 Wizard and even a L1 Fighter would be really hurting the way you have things setup currently.

True. But my question is, then, why are you fighting something with a +7 to hit at first level? Run away!

If they have a 24 and you have a 7, you hit on an 18 or higher. He has sacrificed chances to improve his damage or force of will thru magic items and focused on protection. That shouldn't be a detriment to him.

Why not? That's exactly what it should be. He (the player) chose to focus on their armor class/defense. He has sacrificed damage, etc...by his choice. This would be the proverbial bed that one makes...lay in it. If you (the player) don't like that, then start putting your attentions into other areas...and/or you will play with a "broader eye" with your next character.

Agreed. Double damage should only apply to the base damage, so before they add in their various bonuses. So if a dagger does 1d4, a crit from the dagger would deal 2d4 plus whatever not (1d4+a bunch)x2. I'm assuming you were already planning for it to work this way as that is how the game has worked for awhile now, but just clarifying

Good point/detailing that I would have completely "assumed"/overlooked.

That 2nd line is proof you didn't play 3E heh. They sure as heck tried to have a rule for everything, altho they did stop short of some of the excess of Rolemaster heh.

Ya got me. I'm not interested in that kind of game. I want to move things back to the game of imagination...not the game of numbers. A game of options (that can feed/spark the imagination) without a deluge of
choices that drown the player...leaving the PC a mish-mosh of "stats" and "+'s ontop of +'s" that make/give them "the best at xyz".

He just spent 4 feats to do all that tho, so now he hasn't been able to grab Expertise or Shield Bashing or whatever tasty fun he could pick up w/his first 4 feats. He's very defensively minded tho so if he can give the enemies a reason to keep attacking him, he'll do well. Of course, if he's really hard to hit and has nothing to entice the enemy to attack him, they'll ignore him.

Again, player choice. Good for him. Hope he has some way to keep people attacking him. Standing in front of the other squishy party members would probably suffice for that.

--SD