Getting rid of masterwork/expertise

[Stalker0]

Well, if that is the only way to avoid trouble, I'll consider it. Very grudgingly however, as it really bugs me to see the inelegance of adding arbitrary bonuses to the very core of the system.

Even 3e did this in some respect.

Certain class abilities you didn't get until you were X level in the class. Or many feats had a BAB prereq, requiring you to be X level minimum before taking them.

4e has decoupled class from level and tier more than 3e did, but the concept is the same.

In 4e, if a player gets an extra +1 at 6th level, its not that different from a rogue getting an extra SA die at paragon.

Ultimately I think its a far cleaner and easier solution than trying to fix it with adjusting magic bonuses. The players right it on their sheets and its over and done with.

 

[KarinsDad]

So, for almost no balance issues whatsoever, you can get decent progression and stay close to the core rules with a very simple fix: grant +1 to NADs and attacks at levels 5,15, and 25. That's my preference.

Indeed, this is basically the simplest fix (plus ban Expertise feats, Robust Defenses, and the Epic FRW line of feats- maybe paragon defenses becomes an epic feat as well).

While I see the necessity for Masterwork Heavy Armors, Masterwork Light Armors seems like an unnecessary kludge. One solution: give characters +1 to-hit and to all defenses (including AC) at levels 5/15/25, but change MW Armors:

Masterwork Light Armors don't exist. Masterwork Heavy Armors are as follows:
+1 additional bonus to AC for heavy armor with a +2 magic enhancement bonus
+2 additional bonus to AC for heavy armor with a +3 or +4 magic enhancement bonus
+3 additional bonus to AC for heavy armor with a +5 magic enhancement bonus
+4 additional bonus to AC for heavy armor with a +6 magic enhancement bonus

I think the NADs still need to be balanced between themselves. For example, via the add one to three ability scores instead of two house rule.


As for your solution, let's compare light and heavy AC at PHB solution for light armors and PHB II for heavy (since PHB is just plain bad) vs. your solution here at levels 1 and 30 (don't have time for the interim cases). Assuming an 18 starting stat, +6 armor at level 30, +2 stat boost Epic for the light armor, and a feat for the heavy armor at Paragon:

14 42 43 Cloth
16 44 45 Leather
17 45 46 Hide, 48/49 Barbarian
16 42 45 Chain
17 43 46 Scale, Chain+Light Shield
18 44 47 Plate, Scale+Light Shield, Chain+Heavy Shield
19 45 48 Plate+Light Shield, Scale+Heavy Shield
20 46 49 Plate+Heavy Shield

I can definitely see how this is nice.

However, with the exception of a few higher than level 30 special foes, most foes that PCs will encounter at level 30 will be level 30 or lower.

Does this make the PC's armors too high then? They'll be running into n or n-1 level foes, not n+1 or higher too often.

The PC's armors increase by +29. The NPC's attacks increase (on average) by less than 29 since the PCs will not be running into n+1, n+2, n+3 type encounters hardly ever (except for the BBEG encounters).

Might this be an issue?

 

[keterys]

However, with the exception of a few higher than level 30 special foes, most foes that PCs will encounter at level 30 will be level 30 or lower.

You can add levels to enemies at 30 just as easily as any other level, so I wouldn't assume that they're going to face almost entirely lower level enemies. It seems like a flawed premise.

I also wouldn't assume that any game will last more than a session at level 30. Fight Orcus/Demogorgon/Tiamat/whatever. Wrap Campaign.

 

[KarinsDad]

You can add levels to enemies at 30 just as easily as any other level, so I wouldn't assume that they're going to face almost entirely lower level enemies. It seems like a flawed premise.

Well, maybe. But I do think that only DMs with both time and inclination are going to up levels of enemies to make an encounter tougher. Many might just throw more enemies at the PCs, so the increased AC might be ok due to more foes in those scenarios.

I also wouldn't assume that any game will last more than a session at level 30. Fight Orcus/Demogorgon/Tiamat/whatever. Wrap Campaign.

Odd. I have a very lengthy 30th level scenario sketched out for when (if) my players get there. It involves eventually fighting most of the above 30th level published NPCs at some point or another, and should take several months to finish.

 

[keterys]

I could be wrong, but I would be extraordinarily surprised if most campaigns spend several months at the same level, that level characterized as the one with the worst gameplay, and the smallest selection of available enemies.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Keep in mind that 'month' may not mean the same for everyone. It depends on how often and how long you play. We play 4-5 hours 1/week, if we're lucky. We miss probably 1 week per month on average. So, IF we reached 30th level we most likely would also spend several months at the level, probably just trying to get to the final encounter.

 

[keterys]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding... but in a 4-5 hour session you should probably do 2-3 encounters, three and half sessions a month, you should probably level every month to a month and a half.

So you're going to spend four times as long at 30th level than any other level?

 

[Infiniti2000]

You get 2-3 encounters? We're lucky if we get two of them. We must be terribly inefficient.

Even time spent gaming isn't the same. Some groups will concentrate a lot more than others.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Okay, that's it. I've had it with the mess that is the "math patch" rules in 4E.

This warms my heart. Say no to feat taxes and math glitches!

 

[keterys]

You get 2-3 encounters? We're lucky if we get two of them. We must be terribly inefficient.

Even time spent gaming isn't the same. Some groups will concentrate a lot more than others.

Heh, so either way you won't do more than a usual 10 or so encounters at that level. Even if it takes forever to do the encounters