Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Olgar Shiverstone" data-source="post: 5788599" data-attributes="member: 5868">I think I favor KarinsDad's solution of scaling attack bonus and AC while having damage and HP static (or at least growing very slowly) -- it has the advantage of providing a feel for "skill growth", while still keeping combat short (no massive amounts of ablative hit points) and maintaining the potential for mob combat being dangerous (10th level fighter on 1st level probably isn't worried, but the same guy vs 10 1st levels should rightly run).  That said, a quick review of the alternatives in a systemic fashion is in order.We essentially have four scores under discussion, two offensive (Attack bonus and damage) and two defensive (AC (or other Defense, for 4E model) and hit points).  You want a system that provides a feel for increasing skill with increasing level, so some of those scores should increase.  You also want higher level characters to dominate lower levels, within reason, but still have some ability for lower levels to take on higher levels so that PCs can take on dangerous monsters with clever play, and that high level PCs can still be threatened (avoids the PC walks into town and takes out the entire city guard single handedly problem).  Avoiding too much random swinginess is a value if possible.  What are the options? (For discussion when I use the term "increase" I mean it increases substantially with level at say a 1-1 or 1-2 rate, while for those scores held constant the term "constant" can mean truly constant or simply increasing at a very slow rate, say 1-5.)1.  Increase everything with level.  Equal levels are scaled at higher levels, but high level dominates low level without threat.  Creates a "superhero" feel.  Close to 3E and 4E D&D, here.2.  Keep everything constant.  Equal levels are equal, and all levels are a threat to all other levels.  Now we're playing Harn.3.  Increase attack attributes only.  Higher levels make it very easy to kill lower levels, lower levels have a lesser probabiliy but equal ability to hit higher levels.  High level characters feel skillful but are glass cannons.  Damage increase is effectively meaningless due to static hp.4.  Increase defense attributes only.  Higher levels can't fight each other, and can't be theatened.  High levels never get better at fighting lower levels.  You're Clark Kent in a world with no Kryptonite -- doesn't work.5.  Increase attack and AC, constant damage and HP (KarinsDad).  High level combats among equals feel like lower level combats, determined by the first few blows.  Low levels can threaten higher levels, if lucky or clever.  Higher levels can quickly defeat lower levels due to higher probability of hit.  Some swinginess due to "goldden BB" strikes, but does solve the "Expert Archer" conundrum.6.  Increase attack and HP, constant damage and AC.  At high levels vs equals hits land more often but combats remain the same length as ablative defense of HP overwhelms damage capability.  Higher vs lower levels highers dominate -- they might take a hit or two but there is essentially no risk due to high ablative defense (HP).  I'd put 1E close to this category.7.  Increase damage and AC, constant attack and HP.  Characters never feel more proficient ("Expert Archer" conundrum), but at high levels get obliterated when hit (or high vs. low).  Low levels vs. high almost never hit, but can be lethal when they do.  probably results in the "most swingy" option.8.  Increase damage and HP, constant attack and AC.  Characters never feel more proficient ("Expert Archer" again).  Combats among equals stay relatively constant.  Higher levels vs. lower obliterate lower on a hit; lower vs higher is a lengthening war of attrition but possible if lucky.  This is probably a stable game base, but I expect would result in complaints that characters don't "feel" improved over levels.I won't go through the "increase three, one constant" options -- I find most less desireable.  "Increase one, three constant" is more interesting but a bit less fun [Aside ... unless you do this an let the player choose at each level which one score to increase.  *That* might get really interesting ... you get super attacker vs. super defense man vs high HP dude vs damage monger vs "put a little bit in everything" -- probably a min-maxer heaven.]What still must be fixed is the other inputs to these scores.  We've looked primarily at the inputs from gaining levels; I think what tends to break the game (or did particularly in 3E) is not the level inputs but the enhancement bonuses.  When you add magic armor, a ring of protection, a DEX boost, an amulet of natural armor, etc, to AC and they all stack, the math breaks pretty quickly (across all scores, generally except HP).  To make the system work we either need to eliminate enhancements, or keep them to a reasonable number.  Perhaps no stacking at all (only the best enhancement that improves AC counts, for example), or limit stacking to a total -- no more than +5 can be applied to any score or roll from any enhancements.</blockquote>

Verification