D&D 4E Are 4E powers mimicking poor playability of Dodge?

[Mirtek]

Still don't get your logic. The bonus is higher. That gives more incentive in the first place to remember it, since it's more likely to change the outcome of an roll/check.

I have seen others forget (and forgotten myself) much higher bonuses than +2

It affects more targets

So it's even more to remember. Dodge is something a player has only to remember for his single character (to which he also has special attachment to)

The DM has to remember the +2 bonus because of the defender monster's attack for X other monsters to which he has no attachment at all.

So if players forget the +1 bonus to their dear characters who are supposed to live through the whole campaign, it's unlikely that the DMs will bother to remember the +2 bonus to the seven minions which are completly disposable to him and not meant to live past the encounter anyway.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

You might think so, but you should have been at our Red Hand of Doom table and counted the number of times, the following questions were asked:

"Did you remember to include the +2/+2 bonus for bardsong?"
"Did you remember to include your +3 for recitation?"

Etc etc. And those were bonuses that could be written down once and used the next round. My experience is that there is a significant subset of players who can forget any bonus--no matter how large--if it wasn't written on their character sheet at the start of the combat and who are likely to be utterly helpless if bonuses change during combat.

But they have a few things in common:
- They don't change round to round
- They affect multiple allies
- The caster doesn't need to keep track of them after he initiated many rounds (or encounters) ago.
4E buffs seem to be "Character X gives Character Y a bonus => Player of X tells Player Y that he has a bonus." And that happens each round.

 

[Incenjucar]

I think that writing the bonuses on notecards and handing them to the targeted player will help a lot. I think it'll be harder to forget a bonus if you're holding something that says you've got it.

I really think that using a card system is the best bet here. Just write out every possible buff, penalty, or effect on enough cards to place under the possible number of affected, and tuck the cards under the cards or sheets for monsters and players, and then you only have to worry about cards getting tucked under one another.

 

[HeinorNY]

I had a player who used to forget his second iterative attack.
Some times it's not the rules but the player.

 

[drjones]

Everyone has a 50% chance to hit anything. Problem solved.

Oh you wanted to have fun? Buck up and remember your powers folks.

 

[arscott]

Looking at the aura powers, would it be seriously unbalancing to rerule them as bonuses to aid another actions?

I'd be against this simply because it establishes that Perception and Insight can be aided. Then again, passive skills probably can't be aided which reduces the "can I aid his spot check?" problem a bit.

A +1 bonus seems to be a CONSISTENT 2 level increase due to the math. For example, a fighter from pre-4E with a +1 to hit from a spell is attacking as a fighter one level higher but in 4E, due to the half-level math, he's actually is attacking as a fighter TWO levels higher than before.

Your calculations are good, but your logic isn't. The change doesn't mean that the bonus means more--It means that levels mean less.

 

[IceFractal]

How fast bonuses go up by level has nothing to do with whether a +1 bonus is significant. Only one thing affects that - the fact that it's the d20 system. Because outcomes are determined by twenty-sided dice, the net effect of any bonus is +/- 5% * the bonus. So a +1 bonus is a +5% chance to hit.

That applies equally whether characters have only a +5 attack bonus at 20th level, or if they get +100 to attack bonus per level. +1 is 5% at best.

 

[AllisterH]

Wait, if levels means LESS doesn't this automatically mean that a bonus/penalty means MORE?

PRe 4E, a +1 bonus to many things meant only that you were "one level higher in effect" whereas a +1 bonus in 4E means you are in effect two levels higher.

I'm kind of confused as to what the d20 roll has to do with it?

 

[arscott]

What does the d20 roll have to do with it? It's the core mechanic. It's what actually happens. What determines the chance of success or failure.

And everything else, including level, is relative to that roll.


In 3e, the difference between a +5 to hit and a +7 to hit is 10%.
In 4e, the difference between a +5 to hit and a +7 to hit is still 10%

Heck the difference between THAC0 5 and THAC0 7 is still 10% (but in the opposite direction, since you're subtracting).



But look at levels. In 3e, a fighter who goes up 2 levels gets a +10% chance to hit (assuming he doesn't get magical gear or anything else beyound BAB that increases his attack modifier).

In 4e, that fighter only gets a +5% chance, because he's only getting the half-level bonus. It's the levels that have changed, not the modifiers.

 

[ardentmoth]

reading all of this, i am reminded of a time when 2.0 seemed broken or inadequate. then 3.0 seemed so. then 3.5 seemed like an overcompensation for the inadequacies....

and yet, they've all been pretty decent.

I'm gonna wait it out and see what 4 does (and maybe 4.5) before i go off on how overstacked the bonuses seem, or how annoying it might be to keep adding them up.