Power vs. Options

[Kzach]

After much consideration, deliberation, and experimentation, I've decided that I'm firmly in favour of options over power. By this, I mean that I'm tired of levelling up and getting a +1 to hit and 5 more hit points.

BORING.

Getting more powerful causes half the problems in D&D. Instead, I'd love to see an options-based levelling system. Sure, your hit points, damage and attack bonuses go up as you level, but they do so at very slowly so that the difference between a 1st-level character and a 20th-level character in terms of damage and attacks and defences, really isn't that huge and that given the right circumstances, a 1st-level character could kill a 20th-level character. The biggest difference between the two, are options.

The 20th-level character would have all those levels worth of extra options at their disposal to effectively deal with situations as they arise. These options could be anything that doesn't involve increasing statistics but still allows for a more powerful FEEL to the character.

To put it into perspective, let's learn kung fu.

Two students have trained for years and become 1st-level monks. One stays at the monastery whilst the other goes abroad to learn more about the art. Five years later, the travelling monk (now 20th-level) returns to the monastery and the two friends decide to have a sparring match for fun. The 20th-level guy is a little bit faster, a little bit more accurate, and hits slightly harder, but otherwise, the 1st-level monk is keeping up with him just fine. But then the 20th-level monk does a double flip over his 1st-level counterpart, creating an opportunity to strike from behind, thus denying the 1st-level monk his ability to block the attack. Later on in the fight, the 1st-level monk is almost defeated but pulls off a critical hit. The 20th-level monk, knowing a mind-over-body technique, halves the damage and then uses a ki focus technique to heal himself of a small amount, turning the tide in favour of himself and winning the match.

None of these changed the character's ability scores, or gave him +5 to hit or +10 to damage, etc. but they still made the character more powerful and more importantly, more fun and interesting to play as it was levelled. Power curves cause all sorts of balance and logic issues at the table (the house cat for one, or the fighter ignoring fifty archers because he knows he can handle the damage, or town guards either having to be more powerful than the PC's, or be kicked in the head by any adventurer with a few kobold ears on his necklace), so why use them at all when the more interesting and fun option is... options.

 

[Sunseeker]

In such a system, even the greatest fighting party would barely be able to challenge even the most rudimentary kobold raiding party. Liches? Dragons? Mysterious beings from beyond? Nope, not a chance.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

In essence, I agree with you.

"What" your character can do should determine how good he or she is at a generic "something", rather than that "what" being represented by just a number. For example, if my character is a very good swordsman, it is because they can do x, y and z, rather than just have a good to hit modifier.

The problem with this is that it requires a significant layer of complexity over the core of the game. Another problem is that a large section of players will still go for the "optimized" build producing disparity between the effectiveness of some characters and others. Hopefully with the power curve kept low, they can still make it work.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Rhenny]

You have a point, and by calling it an "Option" instead of a power, I think that would make it more palatable for the critics who viewed 4e as "video game like" where each PC seemed somewhat similar because spells were "Powers," combat maneuvers like Cleave, were "Powers," Healing Word was a "Power," etc. Just calling different options, "Options" is cooler!

And, if the game didn't scale so much, gaining +1 to hit each level would not be as important. I want AC to be finite. I want to know that a well armored creature with low dex is only AC 18 or 19 even if it is a level 18 creature.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

There is indication that this is the route they are going, and there is pretty widespread, though I wouldn't say universal, support.

Obviously, there has to be some numerical increase, as you indicated. Enough to be meaningful and at least somewhat granular. I don't know what the exact number should be, but a level 20 fighter should probably be somewhere in the +5 to +10 to attacks, excluding magic.

 

[Ratskinner]

In such a system, even the greatest fighting party would barely be able to challenge even the most rudimentary kobold raiding party. Liches? Dragons? Mysterious beings from beyond? Nope, not a chance.

I would presume in such a system the adversaries would be adjusted accordingly. I mean we're not just reworking the character side of the table. Unless I'm misunderstanding you, you seem very confident of your assertion, could you elaborate?

 

[Ratskinner]

There is indication that this is the route they are going, and there is pretty widespread, though I wouldn't say universal, support.

Obviously, there has to be some numerical increase, as you indicated. Enough to be meaningful and at least somewhat granular. I don't know what the exact number should be, but a level 20 fighter should probably be somewhere in the +5 to +10 to attacks, excluding magic.

I tend to agree. Although I think what they feel the higher levels should look like is still open for debate, that's not a critical concern.

 

[Sunseeker]

I would presume in such a system the adversaries would be adjusted accordingly. I mean we're not just reworking the character side of the table. Unless I'm misunderstanding you, you seem very confident of your assertion, could you elaborate?

Well sure, if the whole game is designed around that philosophy, then yes it's going to work out just fine. But I have to say that it sounds like it would make for one of the dullest adventures I can picture. In a low-fantasy, human-dominated setting, it works. Your enemies are going to largely be things on par with yourself, if you ever do run into a dragon in such a setting...run away.

However, that's all fine for what it's worth, but that's not D&D IMO. D&D always has that level of epic fantasy to it, of giant monsters and extra-planar beings and pitting characters against circumstances that are truly above and beyond the normal range of human capacity. Certainly these things do not occur on a daily basis, but at a higher level it's not unsurprising to find adventurers facing ancient dragons and old ones. With the proposed system, such an adventure would be impossible.

Frankly, I would not want to see the proposed system as core D&D. For some systems I'm sure that's fine, but this just strikes me as not D&D.

 

[Rhenny]

Even if they flatten the curve for PCs, they can keep AC for monsters Flat and increase HP, monster attacks and damage. They can throw in Damage Reduction, or Invulerabilities for tougher creatures and give tons of extra "Options" for the truly fearsome (Dragon, etc.). If they do that, the truly fearsome foes will still be truly fearsome, even if you can hit them and cast spells against them. I don't think it would make a dull game. It may make it more exciting.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

In such a system, even the greatest fighting party would barely be able to challenge even the most rudimentary kobold raiding party. Liches? Dragons? Mysterious beings from beyond? Nope, not a chance.

I see where you're coming from, but I'm not so sure that you would be without a chance. Large numbers of foes represent a challenge as they should; stranger monsters and creatures need to be approached differently.

You can't just go into the room with a dragon in it, knowing that it is of appropriate level, and thus metagame-wise should present an appropriate challenge with an appropriately-sized (and possibly previously ordered) treasure packet at the end of it. This kind of player attitude was at the heart of Mike Shea's recent "entitlement" quip.

You need to carefully plan how you are going to take on a very difficult foe so that strategically, as many factors are in your favour. My group did this with an excellent open design module in The Old Margreve: Hollow. They had to take on an almost impossible foe and did so by carefully understanding its weaknesses, patterns and the best way how to attack it. In so doing they became more invested and involved in the story, the creature at hand, more knowledgeable of how difficult their task was and thus felt more rewarded when they finally brought it down.

While you would not want to do this for every combat, it does provide an excellent climax to an adventure. Knowing that without planning, a creature or task is a TPK can bring out the best in some players as they get stuck into it and work out how to best defeat it. I prefer these strange creatures being focused on in an adventure, rather than being a dime a dozen in a too-carefully planned series of encounters.

But yes, such an approach means that in general, fighting creatures is more dangerous than previous editions would have us believe.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise