Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Rechan" data-source="post: 5785385" data-attributes="member: 54846">The last time I ran a game, I removed ability scores from the to-hit formula (all attacks are 5 + bonus). The problem was that it still didn't address expertise/other feats/bla. And I despise feat taxes.[sblock="Why would you do that, Rechan?"]There are multiple issues I wanted to address:1) It's almost a system necessity to pump up your primary ability score, at the detriment of all other ability scores. Just so they can hit effectively. 2) In order to get those ability scores at their highest, players usually only pair certain races with certain classes. At the detriment of fluff (I'm looking at you, Drow and Halfling chaos sorcerers). It penalizes players who want a non-optimized race/class combo.3) It limits multi-classing to certain classes. If you want to multi-class, and your class's primary attack score is Intelligence, then unless you multi into a class whose attack powers feed off intelligence, you're unlikely to hit. So it discourages players from multing into what they want.[/sblock]Recently I broke down all bonuses into a chart, using the inherent bonuses, modified expertise bonuses (and other feat bonuses), as well as adjustments to the no-ability-scores to-hit formula. It was a big excel chart showing when you get what bonus when. Then I came across <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4th-edition-discussion/315431-inherent-bonuses-level-hit-defenses-2.html#post5757534" target="_blank">this houserule</a>. Again it removes the ability scores from the issue, and factors in all attack, damage, and defense bonuses in a simpler, player-friendly fashion.I forsee that it's problematic for some people. It means that a wizard with a sword making a Base Attack is just as likely to hit and do similar damage as the fighter. However, the fighter has all these powers to show his expertise at fighting; all the wizard is doing is hitting all vanilla like. Also, it takes away the importance of Ability Scores (which I'm OK with) but doesn't appeal to some people.IMO the biggest issue is that it doesn't mesh well with the CB.I also want to encourage players to take non-number-boosting feats. Now the above formula would give them bonuses to damage which are feat-related (so no weapon focus etc), but still wouldn't cover things like "+1 damage to x damage type" or things like Surprising Charge. I have been contemplating offering a free feat at first level which must be spent on either a racial feat, ritual caster feat, a multi-class/hybrid talent feat (I permit multiple HT feats to be taken), skill focus/training, or any other flavor feat (born of Shadow etc) that does not effect Combat in any way. I want to add Superior Weapons to the free feat list, but while encouraging a player to grab something cool, I fear that would just encourage them to grab a fullblade or other 'it hits better' rather than 'it's flashy' weapon.</blockquote>

Verification