More pure speculation- "The math is different"

[Baby Samurai]

So, for Saves/Defences etc, so far we think it could be 10 + CL + ability modifier + class bonus.

I've heard talk about dropping 1/2 BAB and Touch AC as well, what do you think?

 

[Geron Raveneye]

A 30 level wizard with a bab of 15 is a problem because the lvl 30 fighter has +30 ? It's something I never understand with the ELH, because, as far as I know, a 30 lvl wizard use BAB only for touch attacks. The ones that ignore armor, natural armor and shield. Which, at lvl 30 is usualy a total higher than 15...

So, keep the BAB like it works in 3e !
Just add a magical BAB (at least one, maybe two if arcane and divine are REALLY different), wich will allow you to beat the defense of your target.

Saves are not that hard to fix : just like skills had only a x3 multiplier at first level, the +2 bonus of good save don't stack. Complete the system with a fractional save progression (rounded down), so that a rog5/wiz 5 has : fort +3 ; ref : +7; wil +7.

See the Lone Wolf RPG, where this was done pretty nicely, IMO, with a Magical Base Attack that either came from the Magical Attack class feature, or was half your level for non-magical classes that used magical items to attack. The game has an easy magical and psionic combat system.

 

[RSKennan]

This would suck for even and near even multiclasses. A Ftr8/Rog12 would have BAB +9, weaker than a wizard!

Yeah, that's where I tripped myself up last night. I think I meant to say that a Fighter 5, rogue 3 who took another level of rogue would get the higher of his current BAB or the *9th level* rogue's BAB. This wouldn't unduly penalize multiclassed characters and would give them stats in the overall range for their level.

I don't think it will happen though, it's just idle talk.

 

[Cadfan]

I completely agree with RSKennan on base attack bonus. Rather than having them start out nearly the same plus modifier for ability score, then increase at different rates, start them from different points and increase them at the same rate. This is vitally important if the game is going to have mid level combatants who rely on attack rolls to do damage.

 

[Jer]

We've heard that the math underlying 4e is different than it is now... how do you guys think that might be?

Is there any context from the designers/developers surrounding the claims of "the math is different"?

I've read people saying that this is claimed, but I haven't seen the context of where it's being claimed for myself.

Some speculation, though, just based on the phrase:

* If it's Mike Mearls making the claim "the math is different", it may be in relation to how encounters are scaled and how monsters are created. This seems to be one of his pet bugaboos about third edition. He's definitely talked about how the statistics and formulas underlying the monsters of third edition don't make for an easy encounter/monster creation paradigm on the podcasts, so I suspect that part of the "different math" will be there.

* It may be in reference to how feats and class bonuses interact with each other. Right now if you have a fighter, you pretty much know what feats your fighter is going to have to be an effective fighter - you're going to take Weapon Focus, for example. With the addition of "maneuver"-type effects to the game, could change the dynamic of an encounter and may affect the numerical benefit that some feats provide in different ways. Especially if, as they've said, your choice of weapon as a fighter is going to change the playstyle of that character.

* I suspect that it may also be referencing the idea that characters are going to be getting a lot more feats in this edition than in third edition. This is a change that showed up in Saga edition and I'd be surprised if it didn't carry over into fourth edition D&D. Changing the number of feats you can get changes the way that those feats are going to be designed (as mike mearls also mentioned in one of the podcasts).

Just some thoughts.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

We've heard that the math underlying 4e is different than it is now... how do you guys think that might be?

1) Restructure the rate of numerical advancement from 1-30 so that nothing that advances numerically ever "breaks" the d20 mechanic. This means smaller jumps in BAB, Saves, and "across the board" skill ranks.

2) Remember that numerical advancement does not a "cookie" make.

3) For each level 1-30, every character gets at least one cool new ability. The abilities do not allow you to do the same sorts of things "better," but rather they allow you more options at roughly the same level of competence as all your other abilities.

That's where I would start.

 

[Destil]

We've heard that the math underlying 4e is different than it is now... how do you guys think that might be?

Thoughts?

I think the "monster rolls" will mean that instead of building monsters as a stack of HD that each grant a set numeric bonus we'll have charts engineered to match PCs abilities across all levels.

I think lots of numeric bonuses will be gone, similar to Saga Edition, replaced with rerolls and such (haste instead of granting an attack bonus allows you to reroll one attack per round, for example).

 

[Slife]

You guys are thinking to small. When they say "the math is different", they mean that it's based on fundamentally different axioms. We already got a taste of that with the "two doublings is a tripling" rule, and this is simply expanding upon it. Expect non-euclidean battlemats and klein bottles to hold your dice in.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

Personally I'm wondering which part of 4e will follow a Negative Binomial Distribution....

 

[Galethorn]

I'm still waiting for the D-1, or Mobius-die.