+1/level instead of +½ level?

Well, the basic idea for this was simply an observation (ie that bonuses accrue at a rate of almost exactly +1/level) and a question of how that would work, looking towards the expertise of other people here on the boards.

I've been given a fair trounsing and a fair amount of good evidence why removing Ability Increases might be a bad idea, especially for classes with important secondary attributes.

So, out of the +28 I counted up in the first post, 4 comes from Attribute increases. That leaves us at +24 over 30 levels. Is it still viable to change to a +1/level system? I'd prefer something with an easier application than saying +1 at every level except X (which is what one COULD do).

It's quite possible this occured during the design of the actual game. The "goal" for PCs was to, like monsters, have their stuff increase at approximately that rate, but not wanting to have boosts coming from solely from level (especialy including old staples such as stat increases over time and magic weapons) they went with 1/2 level, which is simplest to implement since it still has a constant rate.


Problemwise my game suffers a little from how important the bonuses on items are over the "effects" as well as The Grind. I was considering how the above solution might perhaps help with these two "problems". So the above is not meant AS a solution, but I was rather contemplating that it might, in effect, help.

In terms of impotance of magic items, there is the DMG2 section that is implemented into the character builder which makes magical bonuses inherent (in terms of attack, damage, armor and neck slot items). This still leaves the feats in the equation though.
 

log in or register to remove this ad



I would not want to change these variations because that makes characters different, but NOT better than one another. Some will have higher Fort and others might have a higher Will, but if you get rid of the variation you may as well throw out the whole system and just replace the to-hit roll with (11 +/- level difference) and forget the modifiers.

As an aside, wonder if anyone would notice if a DM just completely threw out the system and replaced everything with a to-hit d20 roll against a "counter roll" of:

d20 + (level_target - level_player)

with an optional DM discretionary adjustments to account for (mod_target - mod_player).

A d20 roll replacing the "11" and sometimes simultaneously the (mod_target - mod_player) part, essentially changes the DC every time a target is attacked or a skill is used.
 

I've been tinkering with ideas along similar lines. Here's what I have so far:

Ability scores no longer influence attack or defenses, and have a lesser impact on skills.

Distribute 13 points between the following four combat values. All values start at 0 and may not be raised above 5.
Attack
AC & Ref
Fort
Will

-Attack replaces your ability modifier when making an attack roll, though it does not replace ability modifiers for damage or secondary effects. Expertise is either banned, or grants a non-scaling +1 bonus. The damage/crit bonuses granted by magic weapons/implements are still important, and either those items should be distributed as treasure, or the damage and crit damage bonuses converted to inherent bonuses based on level. It is the DM's choice whether the Attack modifier only modifies powers, or if general abilities such as basic attack are also modified. Powers that do not have either the weapon or implement keyword have their attack bonus reduced by 3 (by 6 at level 11, and 9 at level 21), to a minimum of +0.

-AC replaces your ability modifier for AC. It observes the normal restrictions, such as not stacking with heavy armor. Magic/masterwork armor bonuses do not increase AC.

-Fort/Ref/Will replace your ability modifier for the relevant defense. Feats which boost defenses are optionally allowable, but should never be allowed to stack. Magic neck items and masterwork armors do not increase defenses (other magic items that increase defenses are not recommended).

Skills use either your ability modifier, or your trained bonus, whichever is higher. The trained bonus is +5, with an additional +1 bonus per tier if the skill is on your class list. You can choose to be trained in skills that are not on your class list, although you will not benefit from the tier bonus. The Skill Training feat grants you a class skill; the feat gives you the tier bonus in addition to the trained bonus. Allowing backgrounds to grant +2 is not recommended.

I recommend an additional benefit to training, to make it a respectable choice even for players who have a high relevant ability score. I have a number of ideas, the simplest of which is to allow each trained skill to be rerolled once per session. Campaigns involving an unusual amount of skill use might allow rerolls once per day or even once per encounter, at the DM's discretion.

All of these values scale at a rate of +27 over 30 levels (+1 at every level except 1, 11, and 21). This replaces the +1/2 level modifier. You can easily change the challenge level of your campaign by increasing or decreasing the level modifier.
 

I've been tinkering with ideas along similar lines. Here's what I have so far:

Ability scores no longer influence attack or defenses, and have a lesser impact on skills.

Sounds like the Holmes basic D&D box set.

If one really wanted to, Holmes basic D&D can be played without any ability scores (with a few minor adjustments). A fighting man with a STR of 3 or 18, has the same probabilities of hitting a monster of a given AC.
 


What's wrong with skills? I haven't been reading the whole thread.
Your "better system" replaces the normal character advancement tables and benefits. It doesn't list anything about skills. So, what bout skills?
Do they only get better if you are trained, focused, increase an ability score? If so, this makes JoAT massively powerful. It also makes any re-roll ability much more powerful.
 


Remove ads

Top