Forked Thread: Fix Stat Polarity

Nymrohd

First Post
Forked from: http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-fan-creations-house-rules/251472-fix-stat-polarity.html

keterys said:
More and more I like removing 'attack stats' - instead of whatever your stat is, treat it as 5 at 1st, 6 at 8th, 7 at 14th, 8 at 21st, 9 at 28th for attack (or any other system that's decently fair of a progression, can divorce it from the stat bumps entirely). Damage is whatever it says now, secondaries whatever it says now, etc.

So I think I came with some interesting and relatively simple house rule in replacing ability attacks with a level based attack. Let's first see the numbers:[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]View attachment Ability Attack Bonus.doc
The premise is a starting score of 18, no ED ability increase to the attack stat, weapon expertise at level 4 (a new feat in PHB2 that gives you +1 to hit with one weapon group or implement increasing to +2 at 15, +3 at 25) and a weapon that is level +2 always available. You could possibly be worse by -1 to attack by starting with a 16 or +2 by starting with a 20 and taking Demigod or a similar ED but this loss can be handled. What we do see is a less than linear progression, with a base of 5 that increases by 27 points over 3 tiers.
My proposed house rule is this:
All characters have a Base Attack Bonus equal to their level -1 per tier. You start at +0 and increase by one at each level other than 11 and 21 (thus weakening slightly the two most powerful levels in 4E). Magic weapons and implements no longer provide an enhancement bonus to attack rolls (and still provide such a bonus to damage rolls). We increase weapon proficiency bonus for all weapons by +5, and give a +5 bonus to all implement attacks. Any attack powers that have neither a weapon or implement keyword and currently function with the +2/+4/+6 bonus scheme, loose that bonus.

The Weapon expertise feat from PHB 2 remains in the game as a Paragon tier feat that grants +1 to attack rolls, +2 at level 21 with the same wording it currently has (thus people who optimised for attack can still gain the full bonus). Intelligent Blademaster and Melee Training from PHB2 are no longer needed.

What this changes:
Your attack bonus now scales linearly across levels
Your attack bonus is decoupled from an ability. While you still use it for damage and feats, and possibly defenses, you no longer are compelled by the game math to increase that score at every level, and do your best to start with as high a score as possible. This could lead to characters with more rounded scores.
You no longer have to weight the +1 to hit from a +4 magic weapon compared to a +3 magic weapon with an awesome ability. Actually, simple magic weapons and implements should well be removed from the game.

Reservations:
It might be that this change depowers your primary score far too much. While for some concepts I consider this welcome (for instance, the warlock) other classes may well favor a different score heavily against their former primary.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad



keterys

First Post
I think the only other thing of real note I said in the thread was:
Yeah - at the moment I'm thinking start at +5, increase by 1 at 5/15/25 and 11/21. Always on odd numbers, so doesn't stack with the even numbered +1s and it'd catch the hit # a little bit.

Then we found out WotC had done part of that patching job (+1 at 1st, 15th, and 25th from expected baseline, eerily similar) with their new expertise feat and tangented into discussing that.

I would have posted a topic myself, but I noted it covered a lot of the ground of this topic which I found when I went to post mine: http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-fan...s/251435-house-rule-maximised-chance-hit.html

I think gaining the hit on the odds is definitely better. It does weigh levels 11 and 21 down more, but I suspect I'm more okay with that than you are. A feature rather than a bug, as it were.
 

Nymrohd

First Post
The main thing I am interested in is how much power creep this is. With the primary score no longer needing to be maxed out, we will likely end up with people having an easier time to get feats and better rounded defenses. Maxing out defenses will be the new good reason to max out a single stat. Will this lead to fighters who get just as much strength as needed for weapon mastery and then pump everything into Constitution for instance? Is this far too powerful? Should I perhaps limit ability score gains?
 

Sadrik

First Post
The main thing I am interested in is how much power creep this is. With the primary score no longer needing to be maxed out, we will likely end up with people having an easier time to get feats and better rounded defenses. Maxing out defenses will be the new good reason to max out a single stat. Will this lead to fighters who get just as much strength as needed for weapon mastery and then pump everything into Constitution for instance? Is this far too powerful? Should I perhaps limit ability score gains?

As far as I can tell the fighter would still need STR as a damage bonus.
 

keterys

First Post
Yeah, he'd still need a good enough Str that he'd basically be deciding to trade 1 or 2 Fort for 2-4 hp and 1-2 surges... so if anything that might be a feature.
 

Yeah, he'd still need a good enough Str that he'd basically be deciding to trade 1 or 2 Fort for 2-4 hp and 1-2 surges... so if anything that might be a feature.
Yep, that seems like a feature to me. A high Strength fighter will still preform just as well as one would currently, but he can live with sacrificing a few points of Strength to get a higher Secondary (or Tietary, gotta keep up those off-stat defenses!) stat.

Also, I'd recommend reflavoring the generic Magic Weapons, Implements, etc as being non-magical, "Masterwork" versions instead of removing them entirely. Not really needed, but it's a good way to reuse the concept :)
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
Also, I'd recommend reflavoring the generic Magic Weapons, Implements, etc as being non-magical, "Masterwork" versions instead of removing them entirely. Not really needed, but it's a good way to reuse the concept :)
I am somewhat fond of that re-flavoring independently.
in part because my world isn't quite flavored as magical
as the D&D default setting.
 

Zsig

Explorer
I.. uh... like the idea.

I also feel that divorcing from the abilities for determining attack bonuses is a feature. But then you'd need to measure it against Multiclassing, because I fear it would make it very powerful.


Now, uppon reading one of the posts above me, I got an idea.

Ok, we see that they added Weapon/Implement Expertise as a means to patch the game, right? Now what if instead of a feat, they had placed the patch on magic Weapons?

See, there are ordinary crafted armors and then there are masterwork armors, which provides extra bonuses for defenses that "stacks" with enhancement and even armor bonuses themselves (sure, because they effectively improve that value).

What if it was the same about Weapons? Masterwork Weapons/Implements that would come with an extra bonus to hit, and would require a minimum enhancement bonus?


You can't fix the game by placing the patch where it costs the player some portion of its (very) limited resource (feats), but gold on the other hand, is something ... well, not as limiting.

Code:
[B][B][B]Weapon[/B][/B][/B]/Implement........[B][B][B]Masterwork Bonus[/B][/B][/B]..........[B][B][B]Minimum Enhancement Bonus[/B][/B][/B]
Ordinary.......................--............................+0
"Superior".....................+1............................+2
"Masterwork"...................+2............................+4
"Made by the Gods".............+3............................+6
Sorry to place this idea here (even more sorry if it's been suggested before), but it just felt the right place to put.
 
Last edited:

Nymrohd

First Post
The problem would be that the item acquisition is part of the problem. A level 10 item is often far more interesting than a level 11 item which I guess is somewhat unfortunate. But make the difference +2 to hit and it would be necessary for characters to update their weapons to the next level as fast as they can. This leads to magic weapons taking up a disproportional percentage of treasure parcels. Moreover it makes attack bonus scaling even less linear. The main issue hear is to make attack bonus advancement fit monster defense advancement and the latter is relatively linear (absolutely linear if the DMG rules are followed actually).
 

Zsig

Explorer
As long as the DM is the one in control over when and how the PCs get their (high level) magic items, I really don't see a problem.
 

keterys

First Post
A level 5 item (+1 Lightning weapon, frex) in theory should be remotely comparable to a level 6 i+2 magic... the +2 should be better, certainly, but you'd be making it enough better that it's a little iffy.

In truth, the way the system fixes the math problem via gear for armor is not necessarily a feature that's desirable to emulate. It's certainly an option, but frankly I'm not that big a fan of how it's done with armor, either, so I wouldn't do it for weapons. Others will have different opinions.
 


Irda Ranger

First Post
The problem would be that the item acquisition is part of the problem. A level 10 item is often far more interesting than a level 11 item which I guess is somewhat unfortunate. But make the difference +2 to hit and it would be necessary for characters to update their weapons to the next level as fast as they can. This leads to magic weapons taking up a disproportional percentage of treasure parcels. Moreover it makes attack bonus scaling even less linear. The main issue hear is to make attack bonus advancement fit monster defense advancement and the latter is relatively linear (absolutely linear if the DMG rules are followed actually).

I started a thread to address this very problem. LINK. Perhaps you'd like to come over to keep the topics separate?
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top