Radical(?) Thought: no bonuses...

[hbarsquared]

The issue of "balance" has been an ongoing one for several editions. Although perhaps it should not be the primary, overriding concern, it is nonetheless important to creating an enjoyable, consistent, and long-term game. Everything from "bloat" to "feat tax" to skyrocketing skill modifiers... I like creating the highest modifiers I can for what I want my character to accomplish as much as the next gamer - but this seems to be part of the problem.

So, here's my (not-so-thought-out) solution. Do away with bonuses.

Not entirely. I think bonuses should only be a part of character creation and leveling up. Race and Class (and Background?) dole out specific bonuses, at specific levels. Character still get the +1 Ability at predetermined levels, etc. Getting bigger numbers is part of the game, and I don't think we should remove that.

However, the modular, optional choices should not include bonuses. No more magic items with a +1, +2, or +6 to attack, or fortitude, or skills. No more feats that give +2 to saves or +2 to AC. (I am not talking about numbers entirely, though. Items and feats with Resist 10, or +5hp/surge, or things like that should still exist. I'm just talking about the bonuses to rolls.)

This solves two problems, I think.

One: magic items and feats become more "magical" and more "interesting." By not requiring a list of boring feats that fill in the bonus gaps, all you have left are interesting maneuvers and unique items.

Two: The only bonuses available are those that are part of the basic game: you don't have to worry if this feat that gives a +2 or +5 to this one ability will be overpowering or create a weird combination or loophole. From a design perspective, this completely frees up the designers. They don't need to worry about needing to include a +1/+2/+5 bonus to make a feat viable, and don't need to worry as much about whether it can unbalance the game. No more feat tax, no more catching up, no more investing in feats or skills, and no more creating a magic item system that must provide bonuses, all just to make characters more viable.

With all that said, perhaps "No Bonuses" is too extreme... Instead, maybe put a restriction at the very start on how to build these optional character add-ons. Never more than +1, for anything? Or all bonuses must be situational and never flat, across-the-board? Just thoughts...

 

[DogBackward]

I might suggest a bonus cap. Your total bonus on a given check cannot exceed 5 plus half your level, or something like that. Then, you can still have things that provide extra bonuses, but people who like to stack them all up won't actually get any extra benefit.

 

[Transformer]

I think most people wouldn't mind magic items and feats giving no flat bonuses to ability scores, AC, attack, and saves/defenses. In fact, I'll be extremely disappointed if they don't leave well enough alone for those basic stats.

No flat bonuses to damage, skills, and hp might be a slightly tougher sell; that eliminates a lot of design options. No feat that, say, gives a reasonably logical +2 to diplomacy in addition to some other very minor ability? I don't know if we need to get that restrictive.

Situational bonuses, especially to damage, skills, and hp, need to stay I think. What on earth would themes and feats and powers and such do if not situationally modify those numbers?

A bonus cap could perhaps work well and encourage desirable diversification. It would even make char-op both more interesting and less gamebreaking. To avoid fiddliness it would have to be very straightforward, something like "you never ever get more than a +(5 + 1/2 lvl) to any d20 roll, ever." But would that break anything? I dunno. It also has verisimilitude problems: why can't the Potion of Chameleon make me more stealthy, just because I'm already really good at being stealthy?

 

[am181d]

I might suggest a bonus cap. Your total bonus on a given check cannot exceed 5 plus half your level, or something like that. Then, you can still have things that provide extra bonuses, but people who like to stack them all up won't actually get any extra benefit.

Eh. If you do that, people will feel obligated to max. out in order to keep their characters "balanced." I'd rather they were just very stringent about giving bonuses.

 

[Croesus]

I think this could work nicely, with one caveat - PC's should have some sort of hero point mechanism.

Bonuses are a way for a player to limit randomness. You don't want to constantly be charmed? Beef up your Will save/defense. Don't like missing when you attack? Beef up your Attack bonuses. By removing such bonuses, you restrict the ability of players to customize their strengths and weaknesses.

Whether "bennies" ala Savage Worlds, or more defind hero point options ala Trailblazer, players will need something that allows them to minimize the times when the dice simply go against them.

 

[underfoot007ct]

Eh. If you do that, people will feel obligated to max. out in order to keep their characters "balanced." I'd rather they were just very stringent about giving bonuses.

I'm not interested in totally doing away with bonuses. I would rather see a limit, max bonus of X, with X being whatever seems reasonable. Having a limit would have most gamers stop choosing bonus when they hit the limit X, rather than hunting every feat published that can gain them another +1.

 

[DogBackward]

Eh. If you do that, people will feel obligated to max. out in order to keep their characters "balanced." I'd rather they were just very stringent about giving bonuses.

But people already do that. This isn't to prevent people from wanting to power-game, it's to limit their ability to effectively do so. Besides "Option Bloat", the only real problem with small bonus abilities is that too many of them together becomes too powerful. Removing this problem by capping bonuses is a way to eliminate that issue. There are always gonna be people who try to get the biggest number the can. A bonus cap just prevents them from breaking the game while trying to do so.

That said, I'm not against removing most optional bonuses. I would much prefer, for example, to see people get about 5-6 feats over 20-30 levels, and have each feat add a meaningful new option rather than a simple bonus. I'm a big fan of lateral advancement: your numbers don't get bigger, you just get cool new ways to use them. I'm loving the idea of flatter math, both for ease of running games, for keeping low-level enemies relevant, and for reducing min-maxing and power-gaming.

However, I realize that I'm not in the majority here (people like fiddling with numbers), so I figured I'd put forth an option that allows number-fiddling, but has a lower chance of becoming unbalanced.

 

[BobTheNob]

Its not a bad idea, but if there is one thing I have learned about radical system shift is that for every problem you solve, you create new problems to replace them!

My fear with this approach is how much room you ave for features. After Stat-derived features, race feature, class features, item features, boon features, buff features e.t.c. there is going to be alot. Which make me think of one the problems our 4e group had. We are casual, no doubt, and my players end up SWAMPED by options. They spent so much time digging through character sheets examining powers and trying to keep on top of it, and alot of the time they just lost track. This was frequently conveyed to me by the players as a problem.

4e did have space in it for numerical bonus's and alot of our character did have those. Now lets take this idea of features only and move the numerical advantages into the "feature" space...well, the problem becomes worse to the point of un-manageable. Our character sheets were 4 pages long on average, push that out to 6 pages and all I have is non-attendance.

This is where numeric-less systems struggle a bit. In character development there needs to be a constant stream of growth and reward and numeric growth does have one glaring advantage : its simple. If I have a power which allows a player to do subtle maneavours X when enemy creature Y does operation Z allow ally A to be in position to do B, vs a +1 to hit = my players will take the +1. Its easy. PLayers feel they are growing without having to wrap their heads around "another facet".

So, you are on a good thing here, but I dont think sitting on the no-bonus extreme is the final solution WOTC would be looking for. I think its a balancing act where we need to reign in the numeric madness we have seen in the past, whilst still allowing numbers. The whole speak of "flattened advancement" is, frankly, the most encouraging thing I have heard to date.

 

[howandwhy99]

For me it all depends upon the bonus. Bonus hit die per level? Bonuses to attack based on a progression chart for the class? Additional spell slots for casters? Additional known spells? Additional class abilities at higher levels?

I agree Feats should largely go away, but magic item bonuses are set by ownership. They could be lost or used. I don't have as big an issue with a STR 19 belt of ogre strength.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

If bonuses to attacks were highly limited, the system could afford to take more risks with bonuses to damage. If bonuses to skill rolls were highly limited, the system could afford to take more risks with bonuses to what the skills can accomplish. If bonuses to 3E-style saving throws or 4E-style defenses were highly limited, then the system can afford to take more risks with situational defense options.

I'm seeing a pattern here ...