D&D 4E One Possible Approach to 4E's apparant design goals.

[Celebrim]

So far, we've got nothing substantial on 4E. All we've really been leaked are some design goals and some hints.

I've been brainstorming how I would write 4E if I had the same goals that the designers apparantly had, and I think I see one way to get where they seem to be going.

Transform D20 from an absolute system to a system which is partially relative to the situation. In other words, instead of giving a 15th level fighter a +15 BAB bonus, the fighter's bonus to hit depends on the CR he's swinging at, or more specifically, the difference between the CR of what he's swinging and his level.

This would allow D20 to scale up to and past level 20, something that its currently as an absolute system extremely difficult for it to do. It allows D&D combat to play out at 20th or even 30th level very much like it plays at 3rd level, while still giving you heroic attainment. This in turn allows high level D&D to drop much of its reliance on stacking multiple bonuses from equipment and buffs. There are alot of complexities going on here which I haven't throught through, and the initial math burden might make this approach unwieldy, and some sacred cows would have to be shot (for example magic armor might need to grant DR rather than AC), but superficially, but I think that it is doable to scale the success rate of attacks to the level of the opposition (which would incidently give a strong explanation for why saving throws needed to go away).

Thoughts? Does anyone else see this as a possible solution, or is there a better way to go about getting to 30th level and extending the sweet spot? If they go this way, what's your opinion on it?

 

[Remathilis]

So far, we've got nothing substantial on 4E. All we've really been leaked are some design goals and some hints.

I've been brainstorming how I would write 4E if I had the same goals that the designers apparantly had, and I think I see one way to get where they seem to be going.

Transform D20 from an absolute system to a system which is partially relative to the situation. In other words, instead of giving a 15th level fighter a +15 BAB bonus, the fighter's bonus to hit depends on the CR he's swinging at, or more specifically, the difference between the CR of what he's swinging and his level.

This would allow D20 to scale up to and past level 20, something that its currently as an absolute system extremely difficult for it to do. It allows D&D combat to play out at 20th or even 30th level very much like it plays at 3rd level, while still giving you heroic attainment. This in turn allows high level D&D to drop much of its reliance on stacking multiple bonuses from equipment and buffs. There are a lot of complexities going on here which I haven't thought through, and the initial math burden might make this approach unwieldy, and some sacred cows would have to be shot (for example magic armor might need to grant DR rather than AC), but superficially, but I think that it is doable to scale the success rate of attacks to the level of the opposition (which would incidentally give a strong explanation for why saving throws needed to go away).

Thoughts? Does anyone else see this as a possible solution, or is there a better way to go about getting to 30th level and extending the sweet spot? If they go this way, what's your opinion on it?

Nah, too complicated.

For example, I'm fighting a dynamic battle with four orcs, a troll, and an ogre. My to hit would be +10 vs the orcs, but +6 vs. the troll, vs. +4 vs. the ogre, etc. I'd have to know their CR (to determine my to hit) or my DM would be doing all the math (basically giving the monster varying ACs, depending on who is hitting it at what level).

My theory is that AC will scale evenly like BAB will, so there is no "artificial" cap of AC without resorting to magic. That will keep fights even, without resorting to "roll high or miss" or "I cannot miss on a 2"

 

[Celebrim]

Nah, too complicated.

I'd agree, except that they seem willing to do other things which seem bloody complicated to me.

For example, I'm fighting a dynamic battle with four orcs, a troll, and an ogre. My to hit would be +10 vs the orcs, but +6 vs. the troll, vs. +4 vs. the ogre, etc. I'd have to know their CR (to determine my to hit) or my DM would be doing all the math (basically giving the monster varying ACs, depending on who is hitting it at what level).

Well, yes, but its even worse than that because the wizard in the party might have +5 vs. the orcs, +3 vs. the troll, and +2 vs. the ogre champion, etc.

My theory is that AC will scale evenly like BAB will, so there is no "artificial" cap of AC without resorting to magic. That will keep fights even, without resorting to "roll high or miss" or "I cannot miss on a 2"

That doesn't work because BAB doesn't scale evenly. The problem of 'roll high or miss' comes together with 'I cannot miss on a 2' at high levels because BAB doesn't scale evenly. Eventually your fighter can't miss and your wizard can't hit. Your thief can't fail to spot, and the rest of the party can't succeed. The wizard can't fail the save, and the fighter can't pass it, etc. So one way or the other, if they are to meet thier goal, BAB is going out the window. And that would be fine if you are always facing monsters at your CR, but you do want the ogre at some point to transition from BBEG to mook.

 

[Varianor Abroad]

If you have a challenge that's always mathematically the same, where's the fun?

 

[Doug McCrae]

Why not just increase monster ACs so they keep pace with attack bonuses? We know the dragon in the combat example was AC 49. Iterative attacks seem to be gone, so ACs can go much higher than they did in 3e.

 

[Malhost Zormaeril]

I'(snip)
That doesn't work because BAB doesn't scale evenly. The problem of 'roll high or miss' comes together with 'I cannot miss on a 2' at high levels because BAB doesn't scale evenly. Eventually your fighter can't miss and your wizard can't hit. Your thief can't fail to spot, and the rest of the party can't succeed. The wizard can't fail the save, and the fighter can't pass it, etc. So one way or the other, if they are to meet thier goal, BAB is going out the window. And that would be fine if you are always facing monsters at your CR, but you do want the ogre at some point to transition from BBEG to mook.

What you're just saying is that the Fighter's and the Wizard's to-hit shouldn't wander too far from one another, even at the highest levels of play, but still grow without bound. So what you're saying is that the BABs shouldn't be a multiplier based on level, but rather tend towards several curves with the same slope but shifted up and down as required.

Hmm, maybe they could do away with differences in BAB and rather change the effectiveness of the attack (giving out a variable bonus to damage, perhaps a percentage of the monster's hit dice). On the other hand, that probably wouldn't work, as well. Let me chew on this for a while...

 

[Reaper Steve]

Why not just increase monster ACs so they keep pace with attack bonuses? We know the dragon in the combat example was AC 49. Iterative attacks seem to be gone, so ACs can go much higher than they did in 3e.

Shack.