No candy for fun; and bring back the absolute

1) DCs also scale, as in 4E, where a "hard" skill check requires the same d20 roll by the PC notwithstanding his level.

See, though, that's borne of a misunderstanding of what scaling DCs represent. It's not that everything scales - it's that the PCs are facing more difficult challenges. That DC 10 wall they climbed at level 1 will still be DC 10 at level 30, but the PCs will now have just as easy a time with the flaming ice wall as they did with that basic wall at 1st.


What I'm saying is that I find that too many things scale in 4E. I'm not saying that nothing should scale. For example, scaling health/damage and static defenses/attack value is one thing to explore.

This, though, I can get behind. I think the extra +30 is unnecessary for proper resolution. IMO, Instead of setting an absolute DC and having the PC's ability determine it's relative difficulty (as it currently is in 4e, and really any previous edition), you should have an absolute bonus and set the DC relative to the PC's ability.

Frex;

This wall is always DC 15. A level 1 character has +1 against it; a level 30 has +15 ==> Relative to DC; PC scales to show how the wall became easier. Has number glut.

The PC always has +1. When the PC is level 1, the DC is 15. When he's level 30, the DC is 0 ==> Relative to PC; all scaling is done on the DM's side, and is predicated on how hard the DM thinks the action would be for the PC given the PC's level.

The problem is that players like PC-side scaling, because it's seen as a reward - even if it really isn't, and just results in more math or less simple math.

In the end, we agree, but for different reasons. :/
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Okay, let's come full circle.
Because, too often, I find that we talk about these things as components and not a whole.

I like the idea of effects that disable the player or make it difficult for them.
OF course, you also need to have a magic caster that can cast spells to remove this. Thus, a system that rewards the prepared player. Not sure about 4e, but i know 3e had knowledge rolls with every monster type associated with a particular roll.

I think by fleshing out more the monster roll (often i just tell pcs what they could espect if they roll a dc15) then adventureers can prepare themselves more. Essentially be more verbal by telling the dm hey if they roll this they get this information for a monster. I know the old 3.5 books each monster (the later books) had a knowledge roll.

So you don't need a wizard in the party, you just need to make sure you buy mirrors and stone salves. And you have a spell system were magic users still can cast any spell they have, but it takes a little extra (skill rolls, ability damage etc). And on any monster entry, you have a special ability and list the item or spell that can counter it).

I would like to see scaling attack and defense. However, the scale is not automatic, instead you receive them from abilities or feats with the rule being you can never use more than your level in bonuses. So even though cleave and greater cleave give you +4 to attack, you are 2nd level and can not use more than 2 of it. More on this later.

This keeps the quick combat notion in check, but still makes it rewarding. The other way around, combat gets longer the higher level you get, creating the kind of lag in levels that makes people want to reset the campaign at level 10. By using finite numbers and not random numbers (HP and Damage scaling) you can control the balance of the game better.

Yes, levels are suppose to level out. a 10 is average. On average a level 6 monsters should average a hit from a level 6 player. However, a level 6 player should have a higher probbility of hitting a level 2 monster. This math works. It also gives the player the idea of getting better, because you are.

Scaling HP and Scaling Damage, that's where the problem comes from. These are both random numbers. The bigger the number hte more randomness you have.

You end up with games that need a variety of spells, most of these spells exponentially increase increase damage from the last spell, which means monsters need high hit points to become challenging. To make things balanced now they develop other methods to make classes do more damage. All of a sudden we need to give the fighter 5 attacks the rogue 3 attacks and 10 sneak attack die. This whole system creates an incredibly disproportional system of a 2nd level character and a 12th leve character. You kinda get the illusion that a few months of adventuring turns you into superman. A sword swipe that once just maimed someone decapitates them in one hit.

So what you do is remove this randomness and institute controls over the things that scale. With Defense and attack only scaling, no matter where you get the bonus from, you can never receive more than your level from it. It's a trick a lot of European board games use to balance out a game and keep players within a string of each other. (Europ board games have a concept that tries to always make the game winnable, even if you are in last place with a few turns left).
 
Last edited:


Re: Relative values; The problem is, even if you understand that, Walking Dad, the end result is just number inflation. A DM is more likely to use things of an appropriate level than they are things severely off-of-level, so the end result is DC 15+modifiers vs. a skill check of +5+modifiers. I'd rather ditch scaling not because of verisimilitude issues (of which I have none), but because of that inflation. Rather, I think there should be a good discussion on how to represent challenges based on the PC's level - to use 4e terms (and to not think the numbers very closely), a level 1 solo should be representable as a level 10 elite, a level 20 standard, or a level 30 minion. In short, scaling should all be on the DM side, and not have much to do with numbers.
I think that instead of throwing monsters more and more dangerous on paper, it is better to surprise the players with weird ideas.

For example, my last encounter was about an attack of sea Ghouls that threw dead bodies at the PCs. Next round, the bodies stood up amongst the PC, as zombies. The players were in a dire situations, even though the monsters were not that tough.

D&D needs to promote that kind of out of the box thinking, because this is what makes the game memorable.
 

EDIT for posting wrong message to wrong thread.

The metagame that always has to be considered is that people don't have to come to your game. If enough thing happen often enough to make it not fun, then the game doesn't happen anymore. So, yeah, go ahead and have absolute conditions, but only kinda. A player has to be able to do something every round or they get bored and then they get disruptive.
 
Last edited:

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top