D&D 4E Help me eliminate scaling from 4e!

[Kzach]

I was recently introduced to the (very) simple concept of not scaling anything with levels. I can't believe I never thought of this myself. It's utterly brilliant!

I like the 'feel' of D&D. I like the play-style and sense of advancement. But scaling has always bugged (as do classes, but that's an issue for another thread) me as it invariably breaks every system. That, and it just doesn't suit my idea of heroic fantasy.

So, what I'm hoping for here is positive and creative input into how to make an alternate system using all the material of 4e. What I'm not looking for is people who want to poop all over the idea. If you don't like the idea, please start your own thread and don't pollute this one.

I need ideas on what pitfalls there would be and how to solve them. To clarify what I mean by scaling, I'll list a few basic rules that the system would follow:

• Levels do not increase defences or attack bonuses or hit points or skills.
• There are no magical plusses on items.
• Masterwork armour wouldn't convey extra defences.

Characters would still get more powers and feats and still work within the level limits for magical items. They would still go up levels and so receive XP at the same rate. Possibly they could still gain ability bonuses although I'm not sure if that would unbalance things too much.

I'm thinking one thing that would need to be addressed somehow is damage, since damage can be scaled up through feats and powers and magical items irrespective of level scaling and ability bonuses.

Obviously you'd do the same for monsters. But essentially, even a 1st-level orc could still pose a problem for a 10th-level PC. The fundamental difference would be in the PC's options, versatility and capability in dealing with the orc, not in their damage and hit points and ability to hit.

 

[Neubert]

Pitfalls.. I think hit points will give you the largest headache. Let's see what I can think of:

I would be very careful with anything giving a permanent bonus to hit. Vanilla 4e gives you ½-level bonus to hit, and expects you to get the other half through feats, ability scores, magical items, etc. I would suggest to eliminate all sources.
Increases to damage should be rare as well.

Magical items would have to be looked at. Not sure what has to be done here, but items that aren't available until a high level might have to be removed/balanced with lower level items.

Ability score requirements for feats wouldn't work as written.

You would have to have a conversion for power damage and monster hit points. You could choose to simply set monster hit points to a certain number based on role and "rank" (normal/elite/solo).
(Optional: powers shouldn't scale effects across tiers, such as giving +2/+4/+6 to damage/hit on tier).

With skills, you can easily convert a DC by deducting challenge level - 1. There is also the potential for large gaps if someone focuses on boosting their skills with feats and items (this can be considered a feature or a bug).

Conversion of monsters would generally be straight forward (deduct level - 1), except for hit points and damage.


That is all I can think of for now.
Btw, who/what introduced you to this concept?

 

[Gorgoroth]

disagree

Fighters, Rogues, melee types, could get +1 to hit with melee attacks at each level 1 / 11 and 21.

Similarly, Wizards, etc, +1 to hit per tier at their magic attacks only.

Expertise would be very important, but let's say it would have a minimum level of 6 and didn't scale with tiers. HP should probably remain the same, that's what really differentiates you from a lower level guy. A +1 sword is very, very valuable indeed, a +2 would be paragon, and a +3 epic. (include all +1 and +2s as possible +1s, but make magic items be unavailable to level 1-5 characters in general, or simply recommended to higher). That way, finding that +1 sword after the first 4 levels of play is really, really special and important.

 

[LostSoul]

If you're doing the same thing for monsters, then the pitfall is that most monsters will have the same stats. 20-35 HP, 15-16 AC, 13 NADs, +6 vs AC, +4 vs NADs.

If you're not doing the same thing for monsters, PCs will die and/or miss all the time. Powers that don't require attack rolls would be awesome - after a certain point everyone would only use those powers (or die).

Why do you want to do this? What sort of gaming experience are you hoping to get out of it?

 

[Redbadge]

If you're doing the same thing for monsters, then the pitfall is that most monsters will have the same stats. 20-35 HP, 15-16 AC, 13 NADs, +6 vs AC, +4 vs NADs.

If you're not doing the same thing for monsters, PCs will die and/or miss all the time. Powers that don't require attack rolls would be awesome - after a certain point everyone would only use those powers (or die).

Why do you want to do this? What sort of gaming experience are you hoping to get out of it?

The best thing is that the world feels a bit more... something. I was going to say realistic, but that's not really it either. Let me try to explain...

I did this recently, though not to the extent the OP suggests. Players didn't get the half-level scaling bonus or enhancement bonuses (though I still used my own inherent bonus system to provide a sense of progress). Monsters defenses/attacks and skill DCs advanced at half their normal rate (i.e. monster AC increased by half-level). Expertise and similar defense feats were banned (and rolled into the inherent upgrades). Monster HP was greatly reduced (something I tend to do anyways to combat grind). Note that a dragon would still have significantly more HP than a kobold. The bottom line affected very little with at-level challenges (PCs still hit 50% -65% of the time, killing an average skirmisher in 2.5 hits). However, higher and lower level encounters were tenable at a much greater range.

The concept of the campaign was a battle between the PCs and a gnoll empire (one PC, Thurrg, was actually an exiled gnoll "prince"). With this system, the gnolls were able to pose a realistic challenge from level 1 all the way through mid-paragon. Now obviously, the PCs were probably fighting a gnoll ranger and his pack of hyenas at level 1 and the gnoll khan and his 4 champions at level 15, but the amount of difference in attacks/defense were not very much. For example, Kallista, the tiefling rogue, could probably have hit the gnoll khan about 40% - 50% of the time by level 6 and take him down in maybe 8 hits (assuming he wasn't fighting back, of course). By level 15, she could hit him 75% - 85% of the time, so still a challenge. Level 1 gnolls, also, could hit her with a 16 assuming CA.

The main goal is to avoid the quite common scenario common with many RPGs. The PCs enter Wispy Wood at level 1 to fight boars. At level 10, there might enter the Black forest to fight Dire Boars. At level 20, its the Forgotten Forest of Flame fighting Flaming Doom Boars. At thirty, you might see the Wood of the Wayward Souls fighting Three-Headed Death Boars.

In addition, you'll find that you no longer need to scale skill DCs with level to present decent challenges. A small chasm might be DC 24 to jump across. At level 1, one or two PCs might be able to make it across, but the rest of the party will have to find another way. At level 30, this jump is trivial to the same PCs who made it across before and they would be actually be able to clear something twice as wide (maybe DC 30?). However, for the poor wizard, his Athletics check has probably improved by 1 (level 11 and 21 stat bumps). So he is better than he was before, but still unlikely to make it (however, by now he probably has magic that makes it very easy to get across).

Removing scaling brings it a bit closer to something you might see in Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire: The PCs get significantly more powerful as they level, but there is no longer a need to completely reinvent the world between levels (or tiers, etc.). The most basic mooks are still useful to the BBEG; he'll just need at lot more of them to challenge higher level PCs. On the same note, the PCs theoretically could have a slim hope to take down the BBEG at level 1 (except that they can't get through his army of mooks just yet).

 

[Gorgoroth]

if 4e

worked that way, I would be far, far happier with it

It's still fun the way it is, but a lot of guys, especially as they get drunk start to lose the focus when they're adding +21 to a d20 roll. Makes d20s less and less important, which IMO is a bad thing. d20 is God, or at least should be. the most number of +1s you should get is 5.

AC would have to be re-jigged a bit too. But this opens up the design space to have resist all granted as masterwork properties, not just on +4 or +6 plate, but on chain, scale and plate. That would be way cooler and reward heavy armor users, which to be honest, quite frankly sucks compared with light armor guys. E.g. Scale Spec should have Str 15 OR Dex 15 to get your speed back. If you're weighed down in heavy armor, a stronger guy stands to reason could ignore it easier, not just a more agile guy.

 

[Redbadge]

A little bit of my rescaling work is attached in pdf format. People looking to use the methods discussed in this thread should probably start here.

My goal with these numbers is to be having average players hitting on an 8 or above without CA (for example, level 1: +4 stat +2 prof +1 inherent = +7 vs AC 15). I tried to have this 65% same-level hit chance spread across all the levels (85% with CA!, What can I say, players like to hit).

In addition, in general, I believe average players should know that they will hit if they roll a 15 or above (certainly with CA) and have a good chance of missing if they roll a 5 or below. With this chart, for example, an average character (18 stat/+2 prof) will hit on a 15 or above against any monster level 16 or below (level 20 or below with CA), but will still miss a level 1 monster by rolling a 7 or less.

Obviously your optimizers will be even more effective (not a great deal of room to optimize, but an example might be 20 stat, +3 prof, and Nimble Blade with CA). Under optimized circumstances at level 1 (+5 stat, +3 Prof, +1 Weapon Talent, +1 Inherent, +1 Nimble Blade, +2 CA vs Ref), this character could hit a level 24 monster 50% of the time (+13 vs. Ref 24). Without CA, this same character would need a 4 to miss a level 1 foe (he/she will hit on anything other than a 1 with CA).

I hope this math makes sense to everyone. If anyone sees any problems or has any questions, just respond.

Edit: Note that at any given level, same level challenges should be pretty close to their default 4e levels. For example, if I remember correctly, the level 1 Math in my chart is identical to the regular 4e math (assuming everyone took expertise, of course).

 

[shamsael]

I was recently introduced to the (very) simple concept of not scaling anything with levels. I can't believe I never thought of this myself. It's utterly brilliant!

I like the 'feel' of D&D. I like the play-style and sense of advancement. But scaling has always bugged (as do classes, but that's an issue for another thread) me as it invariably breaks every system. That, and it just doesn't suit my idea of heroic fantasy.

So, what I'm hoping for here is positive and creative input into how to make an alternate system using all the material of 4e. What I'm not looking for is people who want to poop all over the idea. If you don't like the idea, please start your own thread and don't pollute this one.

I need ideas on what pitfalls there would be and how to solve them. To clarify what I mean by scaling, I'll list a few basic rules that the system would follow:

• Levels do not increase defences or attack bonuses or hit points or skills.
• There are no magical plusses on items.
• Masterwork armour wouldn't convey extra defences.

Characters would still get more powers and feats and still work within the level limits for magical items. They would still go up levels and so receive XP at the same rate. Possibly they could still gain ability bonuses although I'm not sure if that would unbalance things too much.

I'm thinking one thing that would need to be addressed somehow is damage, since damage can be scaled up through feats and powers and magical items irrespective of level scaling and ability bonuses.

Obviously you'd do the same for monsters. But essentially, even a 1st-level orc could still pose a problem for a 10th-level PC. The fundamental difference would be in the PC's options, versatility and capability in dealing with the orc, not in their damage and hit points and ability to hit.

In the campaign I'm currently planning, I will be removing some scaling.

* PCs do not add half-level to anything. Hit points still increase with level, and they still get ability score increases at the appropriate levels.

* All of the monsters in the campaign are minions and are created using the numbers given a few months back in one of the system updates, except that I'm adding half-level to the base instead of the monster's whole level.

* Magic items do exist and still scale normally.

* All characters gain a +1 bonus to attack rolls against lower level targets.

I think the flat +1 to lower level targets is important, even if ALL other types of scaling are removed.

I feel that increasing hit point totals and increasing defenses are two different ways to to accomplish the same thing--make a character more durable against a lower level opponent--and it's really not necessary to have both in play.

For magic items, I'm taking the parcels normal devoted to these and converting them into item points equal to the gold value of the item. The item points are pooled up and the group can decide how to spend them, adding them to the value of an existing item. For example, 360 item points turns a longsword into a longsword +1. An additional 1440 (or 1800 total) turns it into a longsword +2.

By default, they will only be able to upgrade standard equipment into Magic Weapon, Magic Armor, etc. As treasure, they may find other types of items, like Flameburst Weapons or Barkskin Armors. This will give them access to that item's item powers, but also increase the item points required to reach the next enhancement bonus. For example, barkskin armor functions as normal armor until 1000 item points are spent on it, turning it into +1 barkskin armor.

 

[Psikus]

I need ideas on what pitfalls there would be and how to solve them. To clarify what I mean by scaling, I'll list a few basic rules that the system would follow:

• Levels do not increase defences or attack bonuses or hit points or skills.
• There are no magical plusses on items.
• Masterwork armour wouldn't convey extra defences.

Characters would still get more powers and feats and still work within the level limits for magical items. They would still go up levels and so receive XP at the same rate. Possibly they could still gain ability bonuses although I'm not sure if that would unbalance things too much.

I'm thinking one thing that would need to be addressed somehow is damage, since damage can be scaled up through feats and powers and magical items irrespective of level scaling and ability bonuses.

That looks like a hard thing to implement. From what I see, you'd like to do away with anything that improves character stats, and instead focus on adding options when a character gains a level. The problem is, most options in the game are used to increase character stats!

Consider feats. There are a few very cool feats that grant you powers, but for the most part, the feats people take bring an increase to damage, attack, defenses, HP, or even skills. So you're still scaling stats, though at a much slower pace. What is worse, many feats (usually of a taxy nature) come with inherent scaling - stuff like expertise, toughness, or superior defenses. You'll want to ban those, or at least errata them heavily. But even then, there's the deeper problem: does it make sense to keep feats, if most of the time they are used to increase stats, which is what you are actively trying to avoid?

And then there are powers. For the most part, more powers and higher level ones translate into a damage increase, though there are other implications. Having increasing damage values seems to be impossible to avoid, given your requirements. Is it possible to have just that? At the very
least, I'd have monster HP increase at a similar rate as PC damage. In fact, the easiest thing would be to keep all damage scaling intact (weapon enhancement bonuses, item bonuses, and ability increases -affecting damage but NOT defenses or attack!-, or something equivalent) so that the current monster HP math can be reused (rather than inventing a new one).

Obviously you'd do the same for monsters. But essentially, even a 1st-level orc could still pose a problem for a 10th-level PC. The fundamental difference would be in the PC's options, versatility and capability in dealing with the orc, not in their damage and hit points and ability to hit.

Unfortunately, I don't think you can do the same for monsters - PCs already get more and better options as they level up, but monsters are pretty much defined by their stats and a couple of powers. You would be taking away scaling, without giving them much in return. You could have monsters with constant stats and slightly stronger effects (paragon and epic monsters tend to be larger, fly more often, and have more stuns and dominates), but other than that there wouldn't be much difference between a kobold or a giant - except HP, if you're trying to keep up with PC damage.

A compromise solution would be to have both monsters and PCs to scale in HP and damage. You'd also want to scale XP costs to a much more linear progression, since the gap between lower level monsters and higher level ones would be much more narrow. Minions would be particularly hard to balance, since their damage varies very slowly.

Either that, or just have one monster level, and have PCs face increasing numbers of equivalent monsters as they gain feats and powers.

 

[Nine Hands]

What I did in my current game was to ignore ALL level based increases for attack rolls.

I count the classes Key Abilities as if they had a +5 in it. This is for both attack rolls and damage.

Other stats are assumed to be +3 for the purposes of powers.

As the character advances in level, I automatically bump up this value but ONLY for damage and other purposes, attack rolls are NEVER increased by stat bumps.

For skills, I start off all class skills at +3 and then increase training from there. Non-class skills start at +0.

Hit Points work normally and I tweak the number of surges and starting hit points based on role (Defenders have a higher "constitution" than Controllers for instance.

Monsters use the AC and Defenses as if they were 1st level. Hit Points remain the same.

Feats like Expertise exist but don't scale the to hit bonuses by level.

All this does is take some of the wonky math out of the system and keeps characters pretty well balanced. You don't have to worry about needing multiple high stats (MAD or whatever its called). No "Feat Tax" since Expertise is an option and a pretty good one.

I scale damage according to attribute increases and the assumption that the characters will have magic items as well.

Its worked well in the two playtests I've run since the characters hit at a predefined rate which never really changes and the damage is stock 4E.

It's also a bit easier to put a character together since the numbers are pretty easy to work with.