+1/level instead of +½ level?

[ValhallaGH]

DS, CovertOps isn't the one removing attribute progressions.

How does that change your latest post?

 

[CovertOps]

I'm going to call bullocks on two classes not aligning.

What is happening is that two classes don't align -perfectly- and that there is a cost for doing so.

For example, a Wizard and a Figher do not dovetail... but you have -exactly- the attribute support you need for this. You put points into Strength and Intellegence. You may be lacking in some secondary benefits for certain powers, but you're not doing it for perfect efficacy in one class, you're multiclassing for the purpose of hybridizing and expanding your breadth.

What the system DOES cost you, however, is depth in a single class. You're making multiclassing better simply for the purpose of making it better, and willing to sacrifice single-classing's depth in order to do so... and that is a bad mistake with this system.

What you end up with, then, are single-class characters that cannot enhance their secondary attributes so that multi-class characters that cannot enhance their secondary attributes can... do what, exactly? Cause the problem still exists... the new way, these multi-class characters STILL can't enhance their secondary attributes.

There ARE ways around it. For example, Bards can take Combat Virtuoso and that solves the issue a LOT better than nerfing single-classes just because 'attribute dependancy is bad, mkay?'

So are you saying that a STR/WIS Cleric - MC STR/WIS Ranger is no better than a CHA/WIS Paladin - MC INT/DEX Wizard?

How about a straight class Cleric that would also benefit from this by being able to take a little CHA and use both the STR and WIS powers equally effectively?

My point in this is mostly that WotC screwed the pooch on attack/defense scaling across 30 levels and it's not really that hard to accomplish. Let us compare the difference between a -1 to hit and a -1 on damage:

Assumptions:
50% base hit rate (11+)
2d6 + 3 damage attack (average of 10)
Statistical: .5 * 8.5 = 4.25

-1 to hit becomes:
45% hit rate (12+)
2d6 + 3 damage attack (average of 10)
Statistical: .45 * 10 = 4.5

-1 to damage becomes:
50% hit rate (11+)
2d6 + 2 damage attack (average of 9)
Statistical: .5 * 9 = 4.5

I specifically chose the break even point to show that bonuses to hit are (generally speaking) more important than more damage past a threshold of 10. Much beyond 2nd to 3rd level getting to this threshold is crazy simple and damage will only continue to go up as this only looks at at-will powers doing 1[W]. Being able to have a couple of 16's and 14's in main stats and secondary stats greatly reduces MAD and allows multi combos that otherwise would frankly not be viable. What this proves is that 1-2 points of damage across 30 levels (per swing) is statistically less important than 1-2 points of bonus to hit. Multi class in 4e has enough problems with needing multiple sets of feats, possibly 2 different weapon(s)/implement(s) to fuel both sets of powers and depending on the classes you want to mix two different prime stats and possibly several secondaries, not to mention the feat tax to pick up powers from your "second" class. MC has enough penalties without adding this one on top of the mix. Not to mention that this encourages building your PC based on FLAVOR vs. min/max. Which do you prefer? But hey....you probably prefer 18/14/11/10/10/8 or 16/16/13/11/10/8 as the usual optimal array. This option makes 14/14/14/14/12/8 playable.

 

[ggroy]

Now if you think that is somehow overpowered because it actually allows the Wizard to do something useful if stuck in melee for some reason then you're welcome to have that opinion, but this is really aimed at multi-class characters being functional no matter what 2 classes they pick even if the prime stats don't align for those classes. It reduces MAD problems at the cost of damage which is the whole way that scaling is done in 4e anyway so IMO that is the perfect way to make multi-classes weaker is less damage for more versatility.

In your proposed system, how would you handle weapon non-proficiencies?

As an example, I'm thinking of something like a wizard trying to use a two-handed sword.

Looking at my previous post, a "normal humanoid" with a level 1 primary stat of 10 (ie. stat mod of 0) using a weapon would only have a to-hit modifier of level/2 + enhancement, which would translate approximately to a to-hit modifier of (level-4) + 3 for heroic tier. Perhaps a weapons non-proficiency penalty would be -4, when one uses an attack which relies on a non-primary stat which is 10.

In general, are you finding a way to reduce the bookkeeping in the attack rolls?

 

[ValhallaGH]

In your proposed system, how would you handle weapon non-proficiencies?

Since he made no comment about changing proficiency bonuses, I would assume that they were left alone. And that the penalty for non-proficiency is that you don't get the bonus.

So, a Str 8 Wizard using a greatsword untrained would have (level + 3) to hit and deal 1d10-1 damage.
A Str 18 Fighter using a greatsword (with Fighter bonus) would have (level + 7) to hit and deal 1d10+4 damage.

Just as fast an simple as the existing system.

 

[CovertOps]

Since he made no comment about changing proficiency bonuses, I would assume that they were left alone. And that the penalty for non-proficiency is that you don't get the bonus.

So, a Str 8 Wizard using a greatsword untrained would have (level + 3) to hit and deal 1d10-1 damage.
A Str 18 Fighter using a greatsword (with Fighter bonus) would have (level + 7) to hit and deal 1d10+4 damage.

Just as fast an simple as the existing system.

Correct. Just to break it down again:
@ Level 1
+4 (level + 3) (replaces enhancement, stat mod, 1/2 level, and expertise feats)
+3 (proficiency)
+1 (Fighter weapon talent class feature)

 

[ggroy]

On the similar line of thought, the defenses (fort, reflex, will) follow a similar pattern of

level/2 + enhancement + stat mod

(modulo 10)

and in principle could follow the same approximate pattern of

10 + level + 3 + misc number

(where the misc numbers are determined from the defense stat mods and/or armor).

For the case of AC, it is slightly more complicated depending on the class. For a character wearing no armor or some light armor, AC behaves similar to reflex.

With these approximate replacements, a player attacking a defending opponent via their primary stats, follows an attack roll of:

d20 + (level + 3) + weapon proficiency

against a defense of

10 + (level + 3) + misc number

where the misc number is related to the defense stat mods used or armor. (In this setup, the +3 is superfluous).

EDIT: In this setup, the +level could even be dropped from the attack rolls and defense. Accounting for different levels of the monsters relative to the players' level, could be done on the DM side where each level higher a particular monster is from the players, will effectively add +1 per level to the attack to-hit and defense mods. For example for a level 4 party fighting a level 7 monster, the level 7 monster's attack and defense stats would have +3 added to it.

 

[ValhallaGH]

EDIT: In this setup, the +level could even be dropped from the attack rolls and defense. Accounting for different levels of the monsters relative to the players' level, could be done on the DM side where each level higher a particular monster is from the players, will effectively add +1 per level to the attack to-hit and defense mods. For example for a level 4 party fighting a level 7 monster, the level 7 monster's attack and defense stats would have +3 added to it.

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

 

[DracoSuave]

So are you saying that a STR/WIS Cleric - MC STR/WIS Ranger is no better than a CHA/WIS Paladin - MC INT/DEX Wizard?

No, my point was that under your system, past heroic, there's no difference between a Str/Wis cleric, a Str/Cha cleric, or a Str/Con cleric. Because part of the balance point is also the increase of that second attribute.

My point was that a MC Cha/Wis Paladin Int/Dex Wizard is actually just a Cha/Int character. And under your system, you're effectively removing the /foo parts from every character for no benefit, meaning that the aim of making a Cha/Wis/Int/Dex Palizard more in line with a Str/Wis Cleric Ranger is somewhat misleading... you STILL end up with a Cha/Int Palizard, and your 'Str/Wis' clericranger is actually JUST a Str Cleric ranger.

So you're systematically tossing out something for -everyone else- just to make something that can't use that thing 'equal' to other things.

The real solution, is just to make a Cha/Int Palizard and concentrate on powers that don't rely on secondary attributes.

How about a straight class Cleric that would also benefit from this by being able to take a little CHA and use both the STR and WIS powers equally effectively?

Well, under the current system, they increase Strength and Wisdom, and they take a little bit of Charisma. Exactly what they'd do in your system. In fact, a lot of Clerics do exactly that anyways.

After all, Charisma's not going up in your system (neither is anything else) so it isn't at all like this Cleric is gaining anything in Charisma by abandoning ability increases. And the Strength cleric is likely increasing Wisdom as his secondary anyways.

So... his Wisdom increases at the same rate as his Strength does, as it is now...

What is the gain here for this character, exactly?

 

[ValhallaGH]

Once again, DracoSuave, I'll mention that CovertOps (the guy you're giving a hard time to) ain't doing what you're accusing him of doing.

CO is leaving ability increases alone, exactly the way they are written in the book. He's simply changing all attacks to [Level + 3 + Proficinecy + Class features].

 

[DracoSuave]

Once again, DracoSuave, I'll mention that CovertOps (the guy you're giving a hard time to) ain't doing what you're accusing him of doing.

CO is leaving ability increases alone, exactly the way they are written in the book. He's simply changing all attacks to [Level + 3 + Proficinecy + Class features].

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.