More pure speculation- "The math is different"

[Gentlegamer]

I heard from a reliable source that all numbers in 4D&D will be hexadecimal.

 

[Magus Coeruleus]

BAB gap and the "Sweet Spot"

One possible clue to support the speculation of a fixed class-based to hit bonus rather than a difference in BAB progression:

They said they think the "sweet spot" is levels 7-14. Consider that at the midpoint of that, i.e. around 10th level, the difference in BAB between a fighter and wizard is 5. Maybe they think that, among other things, the hit probabilities work best when fighters have about that much advantage over wizards. Ditto for monsters with best vs. worst BABs.

 

[RSKennan]

One possible clue to support the speculation of a fixed class-based to hit bonus rather than a difference in BAB progression:

They said they think the "sweet spot" is levels 7-14. Consider that at the midpoint of that, i.e. around 10th level, the difference in BAB between a fighter and wizard is 5. Maybe they think that, among other things, the hit probabilities work best when fighters have about that much advantage over wizards. Ditto for monsters with best vs. worst BABs.

So in that case, would you predict that wizards would start at +0, and Fighters would start at +5? That would make a lot of sense. Fighters would have a natural 25% bonus over non-melee types, in addition to strength or dex bonuses and class features that increased that edge.

As for how to handle multiclassing, my ideas there seem less sound. I'll have to give it some more thought. Anyone else have ideas?

 

[Christian]

I heard from a reliable source that all numbers in 4D&D will be hexadecimal.

I already use that as a house rule, so that won't be a problem.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

I heard from a reliable source that all numbers in 4D&D will be hexadecimal.

That is only making 4e more complex. Remember they are trying to simplify things. What could be simpler than binary. There are only 2 numbers in binary so everyone should have no problem figuring out numbers that consist of only 0s and 1s. So that is my prediction, 4e will be binary.

 

[Jhaelen]

That is only making 4e more complex. Remember they are trying to simplify things. What could be simpler than binary. There are only 2 numbers in binary so everyone should have no problem figuring out numbers that consist of only 0s and 1s. So that is my prediction, 4e will be binary.

Nah! Much too old-fashioned. My guess is they'll be using qubits

 

[Mercule]

So that is my prediction, 4e will be binary.

Which makes great sense, especially if they encorporate ordered dice/coin pools. That target number of 25 (11001) isn't much of a difference when the fighter flips seven coins and the wizard flips six. It's like percentil dice on steroids.

 

[Magus Coeruleus]

So in that case, would you predict that wizards would start at +0, and Fighters would start at +5? That would make a lot of sense. Fighters would have a natural 25% bonus over non-melee types, in addition to strength or dex bonuses and class features that increased that edge.

Don't know. My problem with that is that giving that large a bonus up front might be to unbalanced, while staggering the bonus across the first X levels would be too clunky. Who can say?

 

[Aage]

Wouldn't unbalance if AC is boosted by the same amount, I say...

However, if that is the case (and I think it might be, seeing how Saga skills work) that would mean there's a great emphasis on what class you choose at level 1... A fighter1/wizard9 who took fighter at lvl1 would have the same BAB as a fighter10...

In that case, any class with a worse BAB bonus must have something else at lvl1 to make them viable choices...

 

[Remathilis]

So that is my prediction, 4e will be binary.

My hat of d02 know no limit!!!