Level based ability score increases pointless?

[airwalkrr]

Ability score increases are a virtual necessity in any core 3e or 4e game. The game is designed around the concept that players will be able to shore up any weaknesses in ability scores as they level up or focus and hone their primary and most important ability. A 20th level wizard in 3e without level-based ability score increases is effectively at a -5 penalty to Intelligence which messes with game balance (although the nature of game balance at 20th level is a much different monster than game balance at 1st level).

However, you can play the game without them. You might need to make some adjustments to the CR of certain things to take in the kick to power level starting at around level 8 though.

Personally, I prefer 1st edition where your ability scores were set in stone without the aid of powerful magic like a wish spell or a tome of understanding.

 

[am181d]

Personally, I prefer 1st edition where your ability scores were set in stone without the aid of powerful magic like a wish spell or a tome of understanding.

As a kid, I always thought it was ridiculous that characters could NEVER get any stronger or healthier or smarter or wiser without some magical intervention.

Personally, I'd rather that D&D gave MORE ability score bonuses and then phased out BAB and saves in favor of ability checks.

 

[Umbran]

Nope, it's about the math. (Aren't you the guy who regularly mods people not to attribute motivations to posts? )

What part of "seems to be" fails to be different from "is"?

Nope, not a playstyle thing, it's about the math.

Ah. In terms of game design philosophy, I don't feel there is such a thing as "just about the math" in an RPG. The math is a tool to support play, not the other way around. Some maths will work out for a given style, others won't.

I see. You're looking forward to leveling because of what is tied to leveling. That's part of my point and I'm glad you bring it up. Now imagine if all of the "perks" as you call them were untied from leveling (not saying that's the way to go, just presenting the extreme for illustrative purposes).
What if ability scores, skills, class features, etc., none of it was tied to level, essentially rendering leveling meaningless.

Then in essence I'm playing point-buy. Maybe with the serial numbers filed off, and some structure given to what I can pick up, but not exactly a new concept.

However, not all the benefits/perks of the level-system are mechanical bits the character gets. There are two things of note that are due to the fact that character abilities are packaged:

1) The GM has a better handle on the power level of the characters at a given time. This can be partially handled by structuring the point-buy, but the attempts I've seen at that get cumbersome really quickly.

2) The player gets... a package! I kid you not - psychologically getting a package of goodies is not the same as buying tidbits when you will. Some players will care about this, others won't, of course, but the effect is there. If the package is too small, you lose the effect. If the package is too big, you can't give out as many over the course of the life of the character. So, there's a balancing act here. I don't see how one can claim that there is objectively no reason for more than 10 packages over the course of the life of the character.

As for what "truths" there are to the system once you've free-floated the abilities. Some folks will tell you that the d20 mechanic has some upper limits, beyond which it "fails". I say, if folks are having fun at those levels, then the system hasn't failed. Maybe you don't like it, but others do - that is a style thing.

 

[Mark CMG]

Ah. In terms of game design philosophy, I don't feel there is such a thing as "just about the math" in an RPG. The math is a tool to support play, not the other way around. Some maths will work out for a given style, others won't.

No one wrote "just" except you. However, what I was discussing was the math of a ten level system elongated into a twenty then thirty level system and the effects of that throughout the system. I disagree with your continued contention that it is a playstyle issue but you eventually get to an interesting point or two that seems germane so I will quote to focus on that.

Then in essence I'm playing point-buy. Maybe with the serial numbers filed off, and some structure given to what I can pick up, but not exactly a new concept.

However, not all the benefits/perks of the level-system are mechanical bits the character gets. There are two things of note that are due to the fact that character abilities are packaged:

1) The GM has a better handle on the power level of the characters at a given time. This can be partially handled by structuring the point-buy, but the attempts I've seen at that get cumbersome really quickly.

2) The player gets... a package! I kid you not - psychologically getting a package of goodies is not the same as buying tidbits when you will. Some players will care about this, others won't, of course, but the effect is there. If the package is too small, you lose the effect. If the package is too big, you can't give out as many over the course of the life of the character. So, there's a balancing act here.

Interesting. Hyperbole aside, you feel that packages given at level ups are the only viable means to design a roleplaying system because you haven't yet seen a system do it effectively any other way, as say a point-buy. Do you know of any other ways aside from point-buy or level-up packages to design a roleplaying system?

I don't see how one can claim that there is objectively no reason for more than 10 packages over the course of the life of the character.

Who made this claim?

As for what "truths" there are to the system once you've free-floated the abilities. Some folks will tell you that the d20 mechanic has some upper limits, beyond which it "fails". I say, if folks are having fun at those levels, then the system hasn't failed. Maybe you don't like it, but others do - that is a style thing.

There definitely seems to be a general consensus between those working on the new edition and those playing (even those having fun) that there are parts of the system that could be adjusted to its improvement. I don't think we help a discussion of improving the system by trotting out the "fun" argument which usually just shuts down discussion. It's just as possible that those people having fun now might have fun with a completely different system so, please, Umbran, let's leave that debate tactic out of the equation because it tends to lead to edition wars rather than genuine discussion of system mechanics.

So, I'll ask again, once we set aside the various features (whether you feel they should be packaged or point-buy-oriented), and if we take away this system dependence on leveling, and look at the best mathematical way to set up the game based on a d20 core mechanic, what mathematical concerns must be taken into account, in your opinion?

 

[wingsandsword]

I saw home-brew precursor rules that emulated this back in the 2e era. The more simplified "1 every 4 levels in one of your choice" was a breath of fresh air (and had some of my friends wondering if WotC was cribbing their home campaign notes).

It works well from several points of view.

From the simulationist perspective, it makes sense that somebody gets better at what they do all the time. A fighter wearing heavy armor every day and swinging a big sword gets stronger, a Cleric communing with the Gods regularly gets wiser, a Wizard constantly studying and practicing gets smarter, and so on.

From the perspective of lower-magic games (or non-magical or technological d20 games like d20 Modern and Star Wars) it provides a way to improve ability scores that isn't tied to lots and lots of magic items.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I don't see how one can claim that there is objectively no reason for more than 10 packages over the course of the life of the character.

Who made this claim?

To me, this seemed implied when Umbran said this is a playstyle issue (which is subjective in nature), and you disagreed, saying it was a math issue (which is objective in nature).

You're saying that the math shows that a 10-level game is better (objective in nature), and have disagreed with the assertion that your point of view is a playstyle issue (subjective in nature). You said:

I don't agree that stretching the game over more levels is a problem. It is just one possible design choice. Your later statement that, "There's no real need for the system to be more than ten levels...," seems to me to likely be specific to your own preferred playstyle, rather than a solid generalization.

Nope, it's about the math... Nope, not a playstyle thing, it's about the math.

Noting the above, I think it's entirely reasonable to take away that you were speaking from a more objective viewpoint, to which Umbran seems to have made the reasonable inference (as repetitive as that phrase is).

I don't think we help a discussion of improving the system by trotting out the "fun" argument which usually just shuts down discussion. It's just as possible that those people having fun now might have fun with a completely different system so, please, Umbran, let's leave that debate tactic out of the equation because it tends to lead to edition wars rather than genuine discussion of system mechanics.

First, the idea that Umbran is doing anything to advance edition warring is both unwarranted and highly amusing. He's probably my favorite mod when it comes to the subject.

Secondly, saying that your statement isn't as objective as you put forth is good for discussion. If the premise is faulty, it's best to address it before continuing onward. If it's a playstyle thing, there's nothing wrong with the premise, as you're basing all following statements on your opinion. If it's a math thing, there might be a flaw in your premise, as you're basing the following statements on something objective, which is going to be hard to work in because the "best" game is subjective in nature. You can argue most mathematically balanced, but I think The Balanced Game will win that award, which has literally zero options in it.

When you're talking about the "best" form of any game, it's a subjective discussion. Trying to make a point about an objective feature of the game (the math) will still be met with resistance or disagreed at times, because mathematical balance is not valued the same by everyone. This is why I believe that Umbran's statement that it is a playstyle issue is correct.

Just my thoughts on things, though. I might be misinterpreting you, and if so, I apologize. As always, play what you like

 

[Mark CMG]

Just my thoughts on things, though. I might be misinterpreting you, and if so, I apologize.

No need to apologize but to on the one hand claim that we can't talk solely about the math by claiming that it requires including subjective discussion about playstyle while at the same time saying that someone trying to discuss the math must be clouded by their personal choice of playstyle is setting up a roadblock to objective discussion of the mathematics involved. Playstyle discussion is too tied to edition, as Umbran knows, for it to go long before it sinks into edition warring. I'm not interested in that discussion and the OP seemed to want to avoid edition-oriented discussion as well (though admittedly I expanded the original discussion to include more core mechanics than intended by the OP).


As long as you're here, though, do you care to return to the discussion of the core mechanics involved and my discussion of the expanded level base and the ability or lack of ability for a d20 system to maintain integrity during that expansion?

 

[JamesonCourage]

No need to apologize but to on the one hand claim that we can't talk solely about the math by claiming that it requires including subjective discussion about playstyle while at the same time saying that someone trying to discuss the math must be clouded by their personal choice of playstyle is setting up a roadblock to objective discussion of the mathematics involved. Playstyle discussion is too tied to edition, as Umbran knows, for it to go long before it sinks into edition warring. I'm not interested in that discussion and the OP seemed to want to avoid edition-oriented discussion as well (though admittedly I expanded the original discussion to include more core mechanics than intended by the OP).

Playstyle can get kinda edition-war-ey, but there's a couple of the more recent threads on narrative play style that have remained pretty civil. I think it's definitely doable.

As long as you're here, though, do you care to return to the discussion of the core mechanics involved and my discussion of the expanded level base and the ability or lack of ability for a d20 system to maintain integrity during that expansion?

If you wanted to fork it to another thread, I'd definitely give my feedback on it.

 

[Mark CMG]

Playstyle can get kinda edition-war-ey, but there's a couple of the more recent threads on narrative play style that have remained pretty civil. I think it's definitely doable.

Too often it's gone the other way and since it isn't germane to want I wanted to discuss, I can do fine without it.

If you wanted to fork it to another thread, I'd definitely give my feedback on it.

I'll leave it up to Umbran. If he wishes to join in the discussion while leaving playstyle out of the mix, he's welcome to split it off though I'm not sure it's problematic to the life of this thread. He's very forthright about his opinions in threads about probability and statistics, so his thoughts on the core mechanics of the various forms of the d20 system should be interesting.

 

[pemerton]

do you care to return to the discussion of the core mechanics involved and my discussion of the expanded level base and the ability or lack of ability for a d20 system to maintain integrity during that expansion?

I'm neither JC nor Umbran but will stick my bib in anyway.

I'm not 100% sure that I understand your mathematical concerns, but I think they don't have to apply just because the game has levels.

I can't speak for 3E because I don't know it well enough, but an idealised version of 4e wouldn't break down despite its 30 levels, because the DC scaling would ensure that the odds of success were more-or-less the same across the range of PCs - from untrained to expert - at all levels. (To put it another way: if success depend upon a roll of d20 + X being >= Y, then provided Y-X is constant across levels, the actual values of X and Y won't matter). In this sort of game, the function of levels very obviously wouldn't be to change the odds of success, but to take game play into new fictional territory - eg as levels are gained, certain monsters (eg kobolds) would no longer be mathematically viable to be included in encounters, while others (eg Orcus) would become viable for inclusion.

In various ways, 4e falls short of this idealisation. First, there are the controversial scaling feats needed to make the maths work. Second, and related, there are the various buffing effects the scale to various degrees and therefore interact with the overall maths in a wonky fashion. Third, there is the uneven growth in bonuses (because PCs grow only some stats, gain items with bonuses to only some attacks and skills, etc) which means that some bonuses scale at not much more than 0.5 per level, while others scale at (or close to) 1 per level. The skill rules try to cope with this by adopting different scaling rates for Easy, Moderate and Hard checks, but this has implications for encounter design and resolution that probably are undesirable (eg at high levels Hard checks will be out of reach for non-specialised PCs, whose bonuses are growing at a rate closer to 0.5 per level).

It's at least arguable that 4e, if it is to have level-based stat gainst at all, should have them apply to all stats every time, in order to reduce the Easy/Moderate/Hard DC issue that the game currently has.

An alternative option would be to drop level scaling altogether, and with it stat bonsuses, enhancement bonuses, item bonuses, etc, and rely on some alternative method to ensure the progression-by-level of story elements.

(And I'm sure there are other ways of doing 4e-style levelling as well.)