My Rant Apology & Sell Me Flat Math

[ren1999]

I think we will see the the combat math ('to hit' numbers) scale, but in an indirect fashion.

I've heard from several people several times about a possible level cap of 20th level. And we know that the modifiers stop at 20-21 from the play-test material.

I was thinking something similar, a cap at 30th level with a cap of abilities at 30.

If abilities were to scale every level, that might be an interesting trade off to just adding the ability modifier to the to-hit roll.

I also think it would be cool to battle 20 low level Orcs but still have those orcs be a threat because they'll get more hits. I just don't see a heroic character like Dark Wolf from Ralph Bakshi's Fire and Ice missing too much with his axe. That's why I want to leave in the 4th edition level-up rules and just continue to scale monsters to where they can hit more often too.

 

[Sunsword]

There should be improvements to Ability Scores and small improvements to hit that are class based, but they are fewer and far between. If you decide to move beyond 3rd Level, simply use the 3.X rules for Ability increases.

 

[jadrax]

I just don't see a heroic character like Dark Wolf from Ralph Bakshi's Fire and Ice missing too much with his axe.

Sounds like he has the Slayer theme.

 

[Trance-Zg]

I would like to see;

+1 attack bonus every 4 levels
+1 save bonus every 5 levels
+1 dodge AC bonus every 6 levels

 

[triqui]

However, I'm still not sold on the idea that leveling-up is only applied to higher hit points and higher damage. I do want there to be some kind of To-Hit improvement when leveling up. Now if that improvement amounts to very low bonuses, I'm o.k. with it.

How can we have lower bonuses to attacks but still make level-up to hit improvements meaningful?

Once again, there is no such thing as improving to hit with level. The only thing that happens is that monsters become obsolete, but your chance to hit to equal level CR creatures remain static. You level, your attack increase, but the AC from higher level monsters also increase. It's like running on a threadmill.

 

[eamon]

I'd like to see either very few improvements to ability scores (1 or 2 points in a carreer) or only improvements to all ability scores - i.e. all scores improve equally, say 1 point per 4 levels or so.

I don't want (significant) score divergence, so 1 or 2 points to spend every few levels ala 3e and 4e I really, really don't want.

 

[GX.Sigma]

It's kinda cool how hold person works the same for 3rd-level caster vs 3rd-level target and 13th-level caster vs 13th-level target.

It really sucks how hold person works the same for 13th-level caster vs 13th-level target and 13th-level caster vs 3rd-level target.

I get the "fight more and more orcs" thing, but I want high level characters to be able to totally mess up low level characters, and not just by having more hit points.

Maybe there's a "Hold Person, Mass, Greater" that you can access by casting it with a higher spell slot, but I'm not sure that would solve it. (Not saying it's a problem, just personal preference.)

 

[JamesonCourage]

Once again, there is no such thing as improving to hit with level. The only thing that happens is that monsters become obsolete, but your chance to hit to equal level CR creatures remain static. You level, your attack increase, but the AC from higher level monsters also increase. It's like running on a threadmill.

Only if you're fighting "level appropriate enemies" the entire game. In a more sandbox-type game, this isn't necessarily true. While that style probably isn't the style that the majority plays, it's definitely not insignificant, and I hope that the designers at least acknowledge the significance of "improving" within the context of a sandbox world (even if that means advancement is in a module).

Just because you get better with your character doesn't mean that you always have to fight demons now, because their attack and AC is equal to yours. At least, that's not the assumption my group has ever made. To my group, those improvements are important, and the statement of "there is no such thing as improving to hit with level" is wildly off-base. I understand I may not be in the majority, but those improvements speak to the game world: if many demons are better than goblins with to-hit, AC, and hit points, and my PCs are equal those demons, then my PCs, in the game world, are better than goblins. I can now take on demons with some reliability (in a group), and take on many more goblins.

Attack bonus, AC, hit points, saves, etc. are all things that play into this dynamic. They represent fiction within the game world. And improving that is important for advancement of abilities within the game world to a sandbox game. In a more plotted game (which is great fun still) where you basically always fight enemies equal to you in power (or less, if we're using a "CR"-like system), then it's not a big deal, I agree. But that's not a universal play style. As always, play what you like

 

[Mercule]

However, I'm still not sold on the idea that leveling-up is only applied to higher hit points and higher damage. I do want there to be some kind of To-Hit improvement when leveling up. Now if that improvement amounts to very low bonuses, I'm o.k. with it.

I'm with you, on this one. If I have one big concern, following our first session, it's the flat math. The number two concern is "everything is just an attribute test". The latter played out okay over a single session, so I'm cautiously optimistic. By proxy, I guess I'm taking a wait and see stance on flat math.

Neither one really has me stoked, though. Either one has the potential to win me over, if done well.

 

[Harlekin]

DCs should be static

Bonus to skills, contests, and "to hit" rolls should increase by level.

Just feels right.
Just feels... D%D... you know?

I agree. the fact that you can advance enough to make former opponents meaningless always distinguished D&D from other fantasy games. With the new flat magic, advancement in D&D will feel more like WFRP et al. and thus loose some of its distinctiveness.