It brings Tiers to my eyes

[NewfieDave]

Does anyone know at what point a d20 roll becomes useless? Is it at +20 or higher?

The d20 never becomes useless on a roll if you have a smart DM.

Let's say a PC in my campaign is a high-level Fighter with +35 to hit. For an average encounter to challenge him (70% player success rate, or in d20 terms: 1 to 6 is a miss, 7 to 14 is a hit), he should have to hit 7 + 35 = 42 AC.

But what if the Rogue or Monk in the group only has +25 to hit? He would need to roll a 17 to hit 42 AC. But if I include a monster with 32 AC to properly challenge the Rogue I'm not challenging the Fighter at all. This is a problem in 3.5 - disparities between classes which get widened at high levels. Once the differences between bonuses get too wide the d20 loses effectiveness. If classes share a unified BAB, AC, and Save progression in 4e it will help to reduce those disparities.

Edit: Removing iterative attacks will also help to balance out the math at high levels. If a Fighter is going to be appropriately challenged on his second/third/fourth attack, his first attack will become automatic except on a critical miss. Challenging the first attack makes the second attack miss more than hit, the third attack rarely hit, and the fourth attack impossible except on a critical.

 

[ogre]

Well, ok, you've all convinced me. Curse my running imagination. As Mustrum_Ridcully pointed out, I can now see how limiting the bonuses to 1/2 level would work, I just hope the power creep stays away. Thanks for explaining it more.
Also, as NewfieDave mentioned getting rid of iterative attacks will help alot. What a shame too, I loved them at first and in therory, but in practice... it's just too much math. Heck, more than half the players I play with still don't get it! *sigh* Better to have a single attack deal lots more damage. Incidently, it's what I hope they do with magic weapons, have the + only increase damage, or a static BAB bonus that doesn't stack, but would allow some new (Arthur and the sword in the stone) weild it like a semi-trained master.
Thanks for imput everyone.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Does anyone know at what point a d20 roll becomes useless? Is it at +20 or higher?

This is the real point to keep in mind: d20 rolls are always comparative. You're rolling AGAINST something: either a static DC or another roll.

So in combat encounters, since saves, AC, and attack bonus all scale up equally in 4e, a d20 roll NEVER becomes useless against level-appropriate foes, unless there are some really wacky modifiers involved. And since they're trying to get rid of "Christmas tree buffs," there shouldn't be.

The real question here is skills, IMO. From what I understand, you add half your level to skill rolls too, and "trained" skills get a flat bonus of +4 or something.

This means a level 20 fighter has +10 Diplomacy, +10 Tumble, +10 Read Magic, +10 Knowledge: Cheeses, +10 Profession: Wainwright... all of which are better than pretty much ANY commoner. Like, the Royal Knower of Cheeses is probably a level 2-3 commoner with Skill Focus, so that's probably +7... and this big, dumb fighter somehow picked up more cheesy knowledge than him in the process of killing 182,341 goblins.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Mustrum_Ridcully- Certainly good points all around, but none of them fix the math problem. Though granted, the +1 per 2 levels would probably work if that was all there was. But, are they going to make it that bland that every PC has the same BAB, saves, AC etc. Are they going to do away with the STR bonus, +weapons, feats etc. to attack rolls?

Well, there will probably be blandness for some people, I admit. I don't see the difference ever getting larger than +5 or so between the best people in the group and the worst. This is by design. More than that and it is just too random.

(These numbers are all made up, but they are based on what math would do it)
So, a fighter might get a +2 to hit at level 1, putting him 2 higher than a wizard, while a rogue gets +1 (or maybe even the other way around). At level 10 they get another +1 and and 20 they get another +1.

Meanwhile, almost everyone is using powers to attack rather than just basic attacks. So the fighters powers are almost all strength based while the wizard powers are intelligence based.

While the Fighter has a 20 strength, the wizard has a 20 int. They both add +5 to hit and damage due to their stat modifier, it's just a different stat. This makes the difference between the fighters to hit rolls and the wizards fairly close but not exactly the same. The fighter might have a +1 sword. The wizard might have a +1 wand.

This also accomplishes their other stated goal that monsters would be usable for more levels. Since the difference between level 10 and 12 is +1 to hit for ALL the classes it doesn't make that level 10 monster that much easier. Especially if damage only goes up by 1 or 2 during that time instead of 2d6 like it does in 3e.

This is shown by the fact that the Paladin Smites all stay at the exact same damage, even the level 27 one. If all the classes got a bonus to damage equal to their level or half their level, then damage would go up, but slowly.

I think you'll see that in 4e instead of having 2d6+4 at first level and 4d6+30 at 20th, that you'll instead see 2d6+4 at first level and 2d6+20 at 20th. This'll hold true for spells as well. Instead of 1d6 damage at 1st and 20d6 damage at 20th, you'll instead see 1d6+4 damage at first and 1d6+20 damage at 20th.

The idea is that most damage will be similar (but not exactly the same), but that characters would instead differentiate themselves but the secondary effects of their powers. Rogues would be trying to get flanking to activate their power that also opens up the enemy to a more powerful attack next round. The paladin will be hoping he hits because it means he an add to the AC of the wizard so he doesn't die this round. The wizard is hoping he can entangle the enemies with his attack in addition to doing damage to slow them down for a round.

Every class plays different without damage or attack rolls being the balancing factor anymore.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

This means a level 20 fighter has +10 Diplomacy, +10 Tumble, +10 Read Magic, +10 Knowledge: Cheeses, +10 Profession: Wainwright... all of which are better than pretty much ANY commoner. Like, the Royal Knower of Cheeses is probably a level 2-3 commoner with Skill Focus, so that's probably +7... and this big, dumb fighter somehow picked up more cheesy knowledge than him in the process of killing 182,341 goblins.

However, NPCs in 4e are not designed the same way as players. They aren't based on the same rules. The Royal Knower of Cheeses might have +40 to his skill simply because the DM wanted him to.

And because rolls like these are comparative as you've noted it means you can tailor your NPCs to the group you are running it for. You figure that you want the Cheese Knower to be only slightly better than the PCs you can easily set it as that. If you want him to be WAY better, you can as well.

It is also what fixes a lot of problems with damage and ACs scaling strangely at high levels compared to the PCs. If a 20th level monster is designed knowing that ALL players have a +10 BAB at 20th level and an average stat of 20 in their prime stat they know that it should have an AC of around 26 if they want the wizard to have a 50/50 chance of hitting. This won't make the monster hit on a 1 by the fighter, however, since the difference is only 3 or 4 points. Since damage is about the same for most of the classes, you can set the monsters hitpoints to say: 5 rounds of survival for one PC hitting it every round.

You aren't restricted to arbitrary rules on what the AC, saves, hitpoints or skills of the monster needs to be based on hitdice if there isn't any.

 

[BryonD]

However, NPCs in 4e are not designed the same way as players. They aren't based on the same rules. The Royal Knower of Cheeses might have +40 to his skill simply because the DM wanted him to.

What if one of the players wants to be the Royal Knower of Cheeses?

It is also what fixes a lot of problems with damage and ACs scaling strangely at high levels compared to the PCs. If a 20th level monster is designed knowing that ALL players have a +10 BAB at 20th level and an average stat of 20 in their prime stat they know that it should have an AC of around 26 if they want the wizard to have a 50/50 chance of hitting. This won't make the monster hit on a 1 by the fighter, however, since the difference is only 3 or 4 points. Since damage is about the same for most of the classes, you can set the monsters hitpoints to say: 5 rounds of survival for one PC hitting it every round.

You aren't restricted to arbitrary rules on what the AC, saves, hitpoints or skills of the monster needs to be based on hitdice if there isn't any.

I think restrcition was a poor choice of words there. You may not like the wild variability of the "arbitrary" rules. And I won't argue that view.

But the system you have described solves that "problem" by adding restrictions. The stats on a 20th level monster are in a constrained area.

In my current 3.5 game the characters are between level 13 and 15. The players know that the Barbarian can shrug off spells and attacks that will severly harm the wizard. So they take that into account and do their best to avoid exposing the wizard to those effects or, have plans in place for dealing with the consequences if the wizard doesn't avoid it and doesn't get a lucky roll. (And it would be a shame to never again get the joy of rolling a 20 when only a 20 will do)

And by the same token, they know that Charm and other Will effects are the weak spot for the Barbarian.

And these are good thing. Very very good things. That barbarian's vastly higher Fort save compared to the wizard is part of what shows just how freaking tough he is. Same for the wizards overwhelming mental control.

These are real plusses to the game for us. The characters have real strenghts and real weaknesses. Cutting off the ends and forcing the characters closer together does not sound like an attraction to me.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

What if one of the players wants to be the Royal Knower of Cheeses?

Well, than he can't do it at 1st level. Just like I can't say "I want to play the best swordsman in the world".

 

[BryonD]

Well, than he can't do it at 1st level. Just like I can't say "I want to play the best swordsman in the world".

That doesn't address the question in context.

 

[Counterspin]

That doesn't address the question in context.

It does in a way. The power level of NPCs is determined by necessity, while the power level of PCs is determined by advancement.

 

[BryonD]

It does in a way.

But not the right way.

The power level of NPCs is determined by necessity, while the power level of PCs is determined by advancement.

But I didn't say anything about advancement or what level the PC was.

But, that aside, I find the idea PCs are simply denied pathways that are available to NPCs to be lazy and unsatisfactory. If you want to say that the only way to learn fireball is to swear feality to some demon and evil PCs are not allowed then fine. But to say a simple skill that an npc can learn to +40 requires a PC to be a master of combat as a prerequisite (be it through fighter levels, wizard levels, rogue levels, whatever) would be a completely unsatisfactory design for me.