10 or better to hit period

[Nifft]

I think you'd get similar results while having to change less if you simply removed scaling attacks/defenses entirely.

In other words, players always retain the same values they had at level 1 (barring something like a paragon bonus to attack). Monsters have their attack and defenses reduced by their level-1 (equivalent to a level 1 version).

You retain variety (the creature with high reflex but low fort) and you don't have to retool subsystems like weapons and armor.

Eliminate stat increases and you're on to something solid.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Fanaelialae]

Eliminate stat increases and you're on to something solid.

Cheers, -- N

You don't need to eliminate stat increases, just scaling of attack and defenses derived thereof. In other words, if a fighter started with an 18 Str but increased it to 20, he'd still only get a +4 to hit (though increasing damage to +5 would be fine). Under most circumstances, the attack bonus and defenses you start with remain the same for the life of the character. The only exceptions would be class bonuses, such as that granted by the Kensai paragon path. Needless to say, Expertise really isn't appropriate in conjunction with this house rule (if allowed at all, it should be limited to a flat +1).

You also want to change the mechanic for Escape, since otherwise it'd be too easy. The simplest way is that instead of being based off Acrobatics/Athletics, it's instead based off non-scaling Strength or Dexterity modifier.

An idea I've been playing with is divorcing ability scores entirely from attack and defenses. The gist (I don't have my notes at the moment) is that you have 13 points to distribute among the following 4 categories: Attack / AC & Reflex / Fortitude / Willpower. These replace your relevant ability score modifiers. From there, you either follow the non-scaling option (and reduce monster attack and defenses appropriately) or scale at a rate you find appropriate (I like +1 every level except 1, 11 and 21, but that's replacing all scaling elements including enhancement/inherent bonuses). Of course, this does eliminate a bit of variety overall (such as the Shielding Swordmage who's terrible at OAs).

 

[Sadrik]

So, here is a list of things that need to be addressed. Some of them are addressed in ways that some may not like. I am wondering what you think of how I addressed them. I am wondering if there are other things that need to be addressed still?

To recap:
All PC's and Monsters hit AC on a 10+
All PC's and Monsters hit the other defenses on an 8+

Feats
Feats that provide a bonus to hit or defense are not used.

Powers
Powers that give a bonus to a defense now give a penalty to attacks from that source. So, a +4 to reflexes means -4 to reflex attack rolls targeting you.

Armor
Leather +2 HP/tier
Hide +3 HP/tier
Chain +4 HP/tier
Scale +5 HP/tier
Plate +6 HP/tier
Armor bonus HP recover automatically after a short rest.

Shields
Light shield provides +1 while taking the total defense action (+3 total) and can be used to provide cover (-2 to your and your opponents attacks)
Heavy shield provides +2 while taking the total defense action (+4 total) and can be used to provide cover (-2 to your and your opponents attacks)

Weapons
Only three weapons change when modifying the +3 proficiency weapons and one of them is not a +3 proficiency weapon.
No change:
Dagger, Longsword, Shortsword, Falchion, Bastard Sword, Katar, Rapier, Shuriken
Changes:
Greatsword 1d12, Greataxe 1d10, Spiked Chain 2d6

 

[Flipguarder]

How would you handle the idea that controllers and leaders can become much more powerful due to their no longer needing to put points in their main stat. Im thinking specifically of the pacifist cleric who does no damage and can do some extreme things with a 20 in his secondary stat.

Anyone for a level 1 encounter power vs will that lowers all the targets defenses and attacks by 6?

 

[kermel]

I recently discussed something similar in rpg.net. I propose having High Defenses (hit on 11+) and Low Defenses (7+), so that attacking a certain defense and not other is still a tactical choice. In this system, wearing heavy armour is required to have a AC as a High Defense.

I actually went wild and bothered to write some conversion rules to use a simplified math with d6s instead of d20s. I think it's quite possible to have a deep and tactical gameplay without so much number-crunching. The game is more balanced and newbie-friendly this way.

I do use damage reduction for shields. Maybe it's not quite right, but I think it's simple enough and works.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I recently discussed something similar in rpg.net. I propose having High Defenses (hit on 11+) and Low Defenses (7+), so that attacking a certain defense and not other is still a tactical choice. In this system, wearing heavy armour is required to have a AC as a High Defense.

There's a big problem with that: rogues effectively don't get to play any more. Normally they'd have a high AC from dex + light armor. They can't afford to wear heavy armor because it nails their skills. They can't afford to get into combat with a low AC because they die...

 

[EvilDwarf]

I've thought often about the inherent "arms race" and mathematical complications arising from the increased bonuses in leveling.

As PC's To Hit increases, so does Monster AC.

As PC's HPs increase, so do Monsters'.

As PC damage increases, so does Monsters'.

These increases are balanced, right? So why don't they just cancel each other out?

It seems to me that somewhere in the formulae all this is a wash, esp. in a system as tightly balanced as 4E. I wonder if a 3rd level combat lasts X rounds, for instance, but so does a 14th level combat last about the same number of rounds?

I think an approach like Sadrik's recognizes that increase on the PC side is matched by an increase on the monster side (and vice versa), and could simplify things a great deal without changing much at all.

PCs and Monsters would still get cool new abilities, feats, etc., but the math would seem to remain a static element.

The wrinkle would be, as posted earlier, low level PCs fighting high level monsters. If you just called the per level To Hit increase a wash against the per level increase AC, HPs might even that out.

(As an aside, I've also toyed with the idea of having something like 1st level PCs just march out into the world, without their per level increases in To Hit, Damage, and AC, but keep the Monsters as is. Hey, some monsters are just, well, monsters! But, need to kill Radamanthus, the Ancient Red Dragon but you still have your 1st level To Hit, Damage, and AC? Maybe you need to search the FarKeep Ruins for the fabled Sword of Galador the Dragon Slayer...?)

 

[kermel]

There's a big problem with that: rogues effectively don't get to play any more. Normally they'd have a high AC from dex + light armor. They can't afford to wear heavy armor because it nails their skills. They can't afford to get into combat with a low AC because they die...

I've always thought that light armor users havings the same Armor Class than heavy armor users was kind of bland. Rogues and Rangers should, IMO, be more squishy and rely more on their teammates.

But yes, this deviates from the standard rules. If you don't like it you can make Low Defenses to be hit on 9+, only 2 points below High Defenses.

 

[Sadrik]

How would you handle the idea that controllers and leaders can become much more powerful due to their no longer needing to put points in their main stat. Im thinking specifically of the pacifist cleric who does no damage and can do some extreme things with a 20 in his secondary stat.

Anyone for a level 1 encounter power vs will that lowers all the targets defenses and attacks by 6?

They could do this anyway, albeit with a smaller chance of success. Not really seeing a problem other than more options are opened up. If you really wanted to limit your PCs though it is an easy remedy force a minimum stat requirement in a prime stat. This would not be too unlike previous editions.

 

[Sadrik]

I recently discussed something similar in rpg.net. I propose having High Defenses (hit on 11+) and Low Defenses (7+), so that attacking a certain defense and not other is still a tactical choice. In this system, wearing heavy armour is required to have a AC as a High Defense.

I actually went wild and bothered to write some conversion rules to use a simplified math with d6s instead of d20s. I think it's quite possible to have a deep and tactical gameplay without so much number-crunching. The game is more balanced and newbie-friendly this way.

I do use damage reduction for shields. Maybe it's not quite right, but I think it's simple enough and works.

Interesting that you went from the defense perspective and I went from the offense perspective.