Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Majoru Oakheart" data-source="post: 5783893" data-attributes="member: 5143">First of all, I love this idea and had it myself.&nbsp; Bonuses should not increase as you go up levels.&nbsp; At least not without taking some option to increase it.I'm in agreement with this as well.&nbsp; But here I see the solution being something like giving the fighter a +1 to hit as a class feature.&nbsp; Possibly another +1 or 2 to hit at higher levels.&nbsp; Also, let them qualify for a feat or something that gives maybe 2 more bonus to hit.So, that my 20th level Fighter has a +5 to hit while your cleric does not.&nbsp; Also, the level 1 fighter only has +1 to hit.&nbsp; It preserves the difference between our classes and the difference between levels.Mind you, your cleric might decide to take fighting feats and get a +2 bonus to attack from them as well.&nbsp; Not as good as a pure fighter, but close.&nbsp; But, if you choose not to take the fighting feats, because you are concentrating on spellcasting, you'd be just as good at fighting with weapons as a first level cleric.I think damage scaling needs to be in there, just to maintain a bit of difference between high and low level characters and monsters.Sure, a 20th level monster might only have an AC of 15, which means that a first level character could hit it(though rarely) but he'd be doing 1d8 points of damage vs it's 310 hitpoints.&nbsp; It might also only have a total bonus of +5 to hit you against your AC of 10.&nbsp; But it would also be doing 2d8+54 points of damage to you with it's attacks against your 20 hitpoints.It would also solve some problems.&nbsp; Enough level 1 guards attacking that level 20 monster would eventually be able to beat it(69 hits from them could kill it. Which means, it would take 230 of them on average to kill it in a round).Meanwhile, a 20th level fighter might have +5 to hit and be doing 2d8+54 points of damage as well, and will kill the monster in 5 hits, or about 9 rounds.It provides some simulationist leanings for those people who like that sort of thing, while still providing the same sort of balanced math 4e already has.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Majoru Oakheart, post: 5783893, member: 5143"] First of all, I love this idea and had it myself. Bonuses should not increase as you go up levels. At least not without taking some option to increase it. I'm in agreement with this as well. But here I see the solution being something like giving the fighter a +1 to hit as a class feature. Possibly another +1 or 2 to hit at higher levels. Also, let them qualify for a feat or something that gives maybe 2 more bonus to hit. So, that my 20th level Fighter has a +5 to hit while your cleric does not. Also, the level 1 fighter only has +1 to hit. It preserves the difference between our classes and the difference between levels. Mind you, your cleric might decide to take fighting feats and get a +2 bonus to attack from them as well. Not as good as a pure fighter, but close. But, if you choose not to take the fighting feats, because you are concentrating on spellcasting, you'd be just as good at fighting with weapons as a first level cleric. I think damage scaling needs to be in there, just to maintain a bit of difference between high and low level characters and monsters. Sure, a 20th level monster might only have an AC of 15, which means that a first level character could hit it(though rarely) but he'd be doing 1d8 points of damage vs it's 310 hitpoints. It might also only have a total bonus of +5 to hit you against your AC of 10. But it would also be doing 2d8+54 points of damage to you with it's attacks against your 20 hitpoints. It would also solve some problems. Enough level 1 guards attacking that level 20 monster would eventually be able to beat it(69 hits from them could kill it. Which means, it would take 230 of them on average to kill it in a round). Meanwhile, a 20th level fighter might have +5 to hit and be doing 2d8+54 points of damage as well, and will kill the monster in 5 hits, or about 9 rounds. It provides some simulationist leanings for those people who like that sort of thing, while still providing the same sort of balanced math 4e already has. [/QUOTE]

Verification