-1 defenses vs +1 attacks

[Walknot]

Suppose that there was a -1 to all defenses or a +1 to hit, cumulative per round of combat. Questions: 1) Are the two approaches interchangeable? 2) Would this be a good way to speed up encounters? 3) Would this nerf "min-maxing", & encourage creativity? Just curious your thoughts?

 

[logopolis]

Suppose that there was a -1 to all defenses or a +1 to hit, cumulative per round of combat. Questions: 1) Are the two approaches interchangeable? 2) Would this be a good way to speed up encounters? 3) Would this nerf "min-maxing", & encourage creativity? Just curious your thoughts?

Do you want to apply the modifier to everyone in the fight, or do you want to give the PCs an advantage?

If this is for the PCs' benefit, the easiest way to do this sort of thing would be to modify the monsters' defenses, say by a flat -2. Just keep it simple -- if you change the bonus from round to round, that's one more variable you have to keep track of, which might slow down the game.

Having the PCs get an 10% chance to hit will make monsters die faster, but I don't really see that having an impact on character builds. It might make the game a bit more fun for your players -- players tend to get frustrated if their best powers miss a lot.

 

[Walknot]

Do you want to apply the modifier to everyone in the fight, or do you want to give the PCs an advantage?

Both sides.

Mostly intended to nerf min-maxing, by making your attack bonus / defenses less important in that long battle. SO, a fully min-maxed character would be in a better position right off, but even a poorly min-maxed (or not min-maxed) PC would be just 2 - 3 rounds behind.

Thanks for your comments!

 

[77IM]

1) No, because sometimes you make a skill or ability check vs. a defense (the only one I can think of is Intimidate vs. Will, but I'm sure there are others, especially considering DMG p.42). Lowering defense helps these checks as well. Increasing attack does not.

There is also the minor issue of people who are bad at math. It's easier to add than subtract, making the attack bonus easier to calculate; but attack modifiers are more common in the system than defense modifiers, making the defense bonus easier to calculate. Pick your poison.

Then there's the psychological differences. It seems more "fun" somehow (more over-the-top, higher stakes) for everybody to get bonuses. On the other hand, if you're a simulationist, the cumulative defense penalty seems like a reasonable way to represent the fatigue of combat.

I would probably go the bonus route (it seems more fun to me somehow).


2) Yes and no. In my experience the thing that slows down encounters is missing too much, especially missing with encounter and daily powers, so the attack bonus/defense penalty will help with that. OTOH, smart players will wait until they have built up a decent bonus before using their dailies, because it sucks missing with a daily. So that may actually make battles last longer, since people are only willing to use their at-wills for the first few rounds.

This could be an interesting variant, though. Instead of parties going nova with their dailies, they circle, applying at-wills, until the stakes are high -- then all the PCs and monsters whip out the high-damage daily powers and the fight ends with a sudden frenzied bloodbath.


3) I don't see how this helps fight min-maxing. The fully min-maxed character will always be better off; after 2-3 rounds, the poorly min-maxed character may have caught up, but the fully min-maxed character has pulled ahead by 2-3 points.

I also don't see how this encourages any sort of creativity. It's just some bonus shuffling. If I were a player this would not inspire me to do anything but withhold my dailies until the end.


You should playtest this idea and let us know how it goes.

-- 77IM

 

[FireLance]

I don't see how this helps fight min-maxing. The fully min-maxed character will always be better off; after 2-3 rounds, the poorly min-maxed character may have caught up, but the fully min-maxed character has pulled ahead by 2-3 points.

This is true, unless the fight drags on so long that every character only misses on a natural 1.

One way to equalize all the characters earlier is to set a cap on the attack bonus from level + ability score modifier, say to 5 + level. This way, a 1st-level PC with a 20 ability score would hit the cap in one round, a PC with an 18 or 19 would hit the cap in two rounds, a PC with a 16 or 17 would hit the cap in three rounds, and so on.

I would not adjust the other bonuses for the following reasons:

High weapon proficiency bonuses are offset by higher damage dice or other weapon properties. In addition, non-AC defenses are normally slightly lower because weapon attacks usually (but not always) target AC. If weapon proficiency bonuses are not separately added, this system favors weapons with lower proficiency bonuses and attacks which target non-AC defences.

Bonuses from combat advantage reward good tactics or the use of certain powers. If they are not separately added, it de-emphasizes the use of tactics and makes certain powers less useful.

Certain racial attack bonuses, e.g. dragonborn and tiefling, would also be less useful if they are not separately added.

Of course, it could be argued that capping level adjustment + ability score modifier to 5 + level only discourages min-maxing ability scores, and makes high ability scores less useful. Since I prefer PCs to have more balanced ability scores, I'm fine with that, actually.

I think it's quite an interesting idea - as 77IM mentioned, it would encourage the players to save their big attacks for later in the fight instead of using them as soon as possible, and it would make certain power choices for dual-stat classes and multiclass characters more viable. I think I might try it out for a session or two in the next campaign I run.

 

[77IM]

I was thinking about this more and came up with an interesting variant that mitigates some of the incentive to hold back the dailies.

Raising the Stakes
All participants in a combat get a "stake bonus" to all attacks. This begins at +0. Each time a PC uses a daily attack power, the stake bonus increases by 1. The stake bonus resets after a short rest.


Thus, the PCs get to influence the rate at which the stakes increase. The group might lead with a bunch of weaker dailies in order to build up bonus for their good dailies and encounter powers. Or they might hold back, to keep the bonus low, because they want to fight defensively or to preserve their dailies.

-- 77IM

 

[Walknot]

I was thinking about this more and came up with an interesting variant that mitigates some of the incentive to hold back the dailies.

Raising the Stakes
All participants in a combat get a "stake bonus" to all attacks. This begins at +0. Each time a PC uses a daily attack power, the stake bonus increases by 1. The stake bonus resets after a short rest.


Thus, the PCs get to influence the rate at which the stakes increase. The group might lead with a bunch of weaker dailies in order to build up bonus for their good dailies and encounter powers. Or they might hold back, to keep the bonus low, because they want to fight defensively or to preserve their dailies.

-- 77IM

First, thanks all for your kind comments.

If you do playtest this, or a variant of it like the above, please post back how it went. I may try this too, but won't be DM'ing until the spring probably. So, looking forward to your results.

Second, thanks for the alternative suggestions. Like the flavbor of the suggestion above, and the way it meshes with the existing game mechanics, instead of swimming upstream as it were. Also, Raising the Stakes could be interjected like a gypsy blessing (or curse?) from an NPC that the party encounters. It may have bonuses, or drawbacks, and add to the story arc.

Thanks again.

 

[dammitbiscuit]

Instead of something that just happens, every combat, every time, consider a reactive ability that either side is capable of using.

Flipping the Out: once per combat, any group of allies in that combat may choose, as a group, to Flip the Out. To do so, half or more of their members must be bloodied, or one of their members must have been reduced to or below 0 hit points. When they flip out, they have a +2 bonus to attack rolls and a -2 penalty to all defenses.

1 - either side may choose to do this, but it's a personal decision for that side, and is equivalent to giving everyone a +2. It can be up to a +4 for each side.

2 - It is activated in response to a meaningful event. The party generally doesn't get increasingly aggressive and reckless when they're clearing out a bunch of weak enemies, but it will be an option available to them in the big-time fights where it means something.Sure, they'll be able to "cheese" it for their big-deal dailies, however:
-It'll generally only happen in meaningful fights where they're seriously threatened. The penalty will actually be a concern to them.
-The cheesing to ensure dailies hit will actually make sense in character. Playing more cautiously, and then when they see the chips are down, fire off the big attacks!
-Hitting with dailies is fun! Missing is depressing.

If for some reason one of the players thought that wasn't in-character for them and didn't want to participate, you're already houseruling, so there should be no problem allowing them to say they have a cooler head, and they NEVER flip out, always fighting in a balanced, calm manner even when the has hit the fan.

 

[Walknot]

Instead of something that just happens, every combat, every time, consider a reactive ability that either side is capable of using.

Flipping the Out: once per combat, any group of allies in that combat may choose, as a group, to Flip the Out. To do so, half or more of their members must be bloodied, or one of their members must have been reduced to or below 0 hit points. When they flip out, they have a +2 bonus to attack rolls and a -2 penalty to all defenses.

1 - either side may choose to do this, but it's a personal decision for that side, and is equivalent to giving everyone a +2. It can be up to a +4 for each side.

2 - It is activated in response to a meaningful event. The party generally doesn't get increasingly aggressive and reckless when they're clearing out a bunch of weak enemies, but it will be an option available to them in the big-time fights where it means something.Sure, they'll be able to "cheese" it for their big-deal dailies, however:
-It'll generally only happen in meaningful fights where they're seriously threatened. The penalty will actually be a concern to them.
-The cheesing to ensure dailies hit will actually make sense in character. Playing more cautiously, and then when they see the chips are down, fire off the big attacks!
-Hitting with dailies is fun! Missing is depressing.

If for some reason one of the players thought that wasn't in-character for them and didn't want to participate, you're already houseruling, so there should be no problem allowing them to say they have a cooler head, and they NEVER flip out, always fighting in a balanced, calm manner even when the has hit the fan.

That's mighty fun.