Power vs. Options

[Kzach]

Don't be an ass, seriously.

When dealing with something so absurdly obvious, as are the answers to the questions you pose in your replies, I find it far more productive and beneficial (to me), to provoke thought, rather than explain what should already be understood... you know... for it being so absurdly obvious.

Unfortunately it seems to have failed in this case because you keep posing questions to which the answers are so incredibly obvious as to warrant the query as to whether you're the one being the ass here or not?

Rude behaviour for two posts in one page certainly nets you an infraction. Just don't do it, ok?

 

[Dausuul]

Here's the other side of the coin: everything is incremental.

That is to say, any kind of options acquired through character advancement are somewhat problematic. If a character acquires a new ability, there's question of why that ability appeared out of nowhere. Why could this fighter not at least try to swing his sword this way before leveling up?

This is like saying, "Anybody can fly a fighter jet by pushing the right buttons and pulling the right levers, so why can't my untrained character at least try to jump in and take off?"

Answer: You can try, but absent training, you will fail abysmally every time. There's no need for specific rules to model what would happen because the result is always the same, and it's the same result as if you just missed with a regular attack--nothing happens. You fail.

Now, in a realistic game, these abilities would be on a scale where you start out unable to do it, and then you progress to being just barely able to do it on a good day, and then you progress to being sort of okay at it, and then to being tolerably competent, et cetera. However, those rules would add way too much complexity for very little benefit IMO.

 

[billd91]

I'm all for option over power.

I don't even think hit points or attack bonuses need to go up, we're just trained to think they need to.

But isn't some element of this a core D&D experience? And if it's gone, is it still D&D? I'm not sure it is. I can tolerate a certain flattening of the curve, but without some increase in power, you're really giving up a lot of the epic scope of adventuring D&D has encompassed to date.

 

[Tallifer]

This is an intriguing idea. I do find adding numbers is the dullest way to enhance a character in a roleplaying game. New abilities are always fun.

However I would not discard the advancement of power entirely. There has to be some demonstrable superiority in strength, hitting power and staying power for the greatest of warriors and mightiest of wizards. John Carter and Elric of Melnibone did not mow their way through a hundred or a thousand warriors because of a few more fancy moves.

 

[kitsune9]

If I was to play in a gritty system like WHFRP, this is very logical, but in a system where there a 20th level character can take on a dragon, but a 1st level character would snack-time, I would disagree with it.

I do understand the need for the power scaling to be slowed down though, because I don't like all the ridiculous math that goes into adding up modifiers at high levels, particularly when it outpaces the meaningful range of a d20 roll. However, I don't think I would want it to the point that an orc is still a threat to your 20th level character.

 

[BobTheNob]

Umm... you realise that monsters would work in the same way, right? And in such a system, even a 1st-level party would stand a chance against a 20th-level lich. Or is 1 + 1 too difficult a concept?

This is a little below the belt and you didn't really need to post it. Lets keep this civil.

That said, Kzach, Im completely in your camp. I think this is definitely the way to go. Let players become more powerful through diversification instead of just numbers (yawn).

As to the concerns about high level play and not being able to take on dragons. Well, frankly, taking on such daunting opponents can be handled differently. Build weaknesses into the enemy as part of plot, get success back into the story instead of on the character sheet.

 

[BobTheNob]

This is an intriguing idea. I do find adding numbers is the dullest way to enhance a character in a roleplaying game. New abilities are always fun.

However I would not discard the advancement of power entirely. There has to be some demonstrable superiority in strength, hitting power and staying power for the greatest of warriors and mightiest of wizards. John Carter and Elric of Melnibone did not mow their way through a hundred or a thousand warriors because of a few more fancy moves.

I dont think anyone is suggesting removing numeric advancement altogether. It is still a good way to measure growth, but I think there is a growing consciousness that number growth shouldn't out scale the dice in question. We just shouldn't get to the point when the bonus on a roll is bigger than the maximum potential of the dice being rolled. It just does sit right with me when you all a d20 with a +30 bonus. They are not only crazy numbers to look at, it just creates demand that the thing you are rolling against ALSO have +30's, which gets really dull quickly.

I think the old 3e idea of a fighter getting a +1 to ht every level is over. Im more for +1 every 4 (or around that)

 

[tbk409]

... The numbers for the monsters (even the big ones) have changed so much over the years that they are essentially meaningless...

Exactly. My players never say anything like "I have a +23 to hit! I am so powerful!" Maybe we did in grade school before we really got the math, but now it comes off to everyone as nothing more than an arithmetic annoyance, and a bunch of needless changing of character sheets (particularly for skills.)

(Like many we houseruled out the 4e half-level-bonus, but with the online tools it becomes such a nuisance to go back and forth. I would love to see this silliness removed.)

 

[Ratskinner]

But isn't some element of this a core D&D experience? And if it's gone, is it still D&D? I'm not sure it is. I can tolerate a certain flattening of the curve, but without some increase in power, you're really giving up a lot of the epic scope of adventuring D&D has encompassed to date.

This is an intriguing idea. I do find adding numbers is the dullest way to enhance a character in a roleplaying game. New abilities are always fun.

However I would not discard the advancement of power entirely. There has to be some demonstrable superiority in strength, hitting power and staying power for the greatest of warriors and mightiest of wizards.

I do understand the need for the power scaling to be slowed down though, because I don't like all the ridiculous math that goes into adding up modifiers at high levels, particularly when it outpaces the meaningful range of a d20 roll. However, I don't think I would want it to the point that an orc is still a threat to your 20th level character.

I actually think that sounds like the direction they are going. Flatten the curve a bit (I dunno how much at this point.) It doesn't sound to me like they are abandoning stat increases entirely, but it does seem to be a place where a lot of problems are getting solved. So the orc might not threaten a 20th level character, but is still useful against a 7th level party.

My biggest curiousity and fear is how they do the options thing. I really have come to hate character book keeping.

 

[Minigiant]

I just made a power vs properties vs options topic. Most people preferred options with a little bit of big numbers and special qualities.

I like the idea of a flatter curve. It would reduce the amount of fiddly bonuses we'd look at in recent editions.

My only fear is the d20. The d20 is a big dice. A NPC with no bonus to attack can still roll over 15 25% of the time. So a level 10 guy in a breastplate and greatsword will only received a 15% buff on the orcs he fought 10 levels back.

I'm 50/50 on this.