Skirmishing Warlord

[Destil]

Strength for bow attacks now, huh? Why don't they just get rid of ability scores all together, since they're pretty much absolutely meaningless outside of class powers. Most classes will have decent NADs thanks to the redundancy, and so basically the only thing they govern is skills.

It would make the classes more flexible. Instead of being a "Tactical warlord" you could have an array of scores that looks like:
Tactical: 18, Inspiring: 13, Resourceful: 16, Bravura: 8, Archery: 10

Melee Training: Charisma just called, it wants its straw-man status back.

Really, with a long bow with something like 100 lbs. of draw, Str makes perfect sense for attacking, heck it was used for damage in earlier editions with bows. Crossbows less so of course.

4E would be surprisingly easy to convert to Tri-Stat system, though. This has struck me at times as well. I think I'd prefer the base 6 scores + a Heroic score for attack and damage and a secondary heroic score for riders, but that's at least an edition away...

Con and Dex are the only scores left with vestigial design elements that affect the rules, skills aside (sometimes Str comes into play on melee basics, too). Once you kill those it makes some sense to do a minor overhaul on everything else...

 

[lukelightning]

They need a new implement for warlords: Laser Pointer.

 

[Mengu]

LOLWUT

+1 from racial attribute.
+1 from weapon difference.
+1 from dagger rogueyness.

How does this equate to a +7 difference?

And don't say 'combat advantage' cause that's not exclusive to halflings OR rogues... the dwarf is his most likely flank partner, after all.

Well, it's not so much a matter of what can be built, as it is, what a player decides to build.

Dwarf Paladin with 16 charisma and a battle axe, likes to run around with his +5 vs AC attacks picking on targets by himself, cause ya know, he's the tank with 20 AC and toughness, and wants to lock them down while his buddies kill other stuff. The halfling with 20 dex, dagger, and expertise likes to go about flank with his (more competent) fighter buddy using +12 vs Reflex attacks. It happens, you can't get every player to optimize. The discrepancy in hit frequency can be very evident in play.

And while I'm exaggerating a bit, something close to this scenario did happen in one of my games (the rogue had backstabber not expertise).

A standardized attack bonus could definitely be a good thing.

 

[Rechan]

In my game I implemented a Houserule that treats everyone has having a 20 in whatever attack stat they're using, for purposes of attacking.

(Thus, even a wizard making a basic attack with his staff uses 5 + 1/2 level + Proficiency to determine the attack).

 

[Nahat Anoj]

In my game I implemented a Houserule that treats everyone has having a 20 in whatever attack stat they're using, for purposes of attacking.

(Thus, even a wizard making a basic attack with his staff uses 5 + 1/2 level + Proficiency to determine the attack).

Cool idea. It's kind of like treating attacks as skills, and the class has training in those attacks (which makes sense IMO).

 

[Prestidigitalis]

Tactical: 18, Inspiring: 13, Resourceful: 16, Bravura: 8, Archery: 10

You know, I quite like that idea. Define the character statistically by his/her focus on different aspects of the archetype, rather than physical/mental stats. Str, Dex, etc. could be kept around for things like Strength checks (knocking down a door), Initiative, Hit Points, etc.

Would it still be D&D? Not sure, but it would certainly be a refreshing approach.

 

[Rechan]

Cool idea. It's kind of like treating attacks as skills, and the class has training in those attacks (which makes sense IMO).

Never thought of it like that. Here's the full text of the houserule:

[sblock]
Change to To-Hit formula

Normally you determine your attack bonus this way:


Primary Ability Score + ½ level + Weapon Proficiency + Enhancement + Feat



I propose the following change:

5 + ½ Level + Weapon Proficiency + Enhancement + Non-Expertise Feat
+1 at levels 5, 11, 15, 21, 25.



Damage for an attack still depends on the primary score of the power used (such as 1[W]+Dex for a ranged basic attack).


I implemented this rule for multiple reasons.

1) Due to the math of the system, you're highly encouraged to get your primary score as high as possible. A 16 in a primary score is sufficient, but you'll be missing a lot. This means that all of your stats are going to suffer because you just want to be able to compete. Now, you can relax a little, you have the assurance you have a strong chance of hitting without sweating about your stats, and your defenses aren't going to be one-sided.

2) Feat taxes. The formula takes into account Expertise. As well it takes into account Melee Training, so that a non-dex based class that uses ranged weapons now doesn't suck at a basic ranged attack.

3) Multi-classing. As it stands, if you have a high primary score and an OK secondary, you really should only multi-class into a class that uses your primary, or maybe your secondary. This way, you can multi-class into any class without fear that you'll never even hit with a swapped out power.

4) Fluff. I dislike how there's a habit to just pick the best race/class combo, and that's it. I like to see classes more diverse, AND I dislike fluff that doesn't go with the race/class combo. Chaos sorcerers are best with halflings and drow, stat wise - but there's nothing about those two races that says "Chaos sorcerer". So I want to make it more attractive to play a non-perfect race/class combo.[/sblock]

 

[DracoSuave]

Well, it's not so much a matter of what can be built, as it is, what a player decides to build.

Oh. So your argument is 'A player can have a better to-hit if he wants to, and therefore that should be abolished.'

While the premise is correct, the conclusion is sadly lacking. The argument needs fleshed out more.

Dwarf Paladin with 16 charisma and a battle axe, likes to run around with his +5 vs AC attacks picking on targets by himself, cause ya know, he's the tank with 20 AC and toughness, and wants to lock them down while his buddies kill other stuff.

Right, a perfectly viable build.

The halfling with 20 dex, dagger, and expertise likes to go about flank with his (more competent) fighter buddy using +12 vs Reflex attacks. It happens, you can't get every player to optimize. The discrepancy in hit frequency can be very evident in play.

You lost me here. Where did this fighter come into it? You mean that the rogue is completely incapable of flanking with the aforementioned dwarf paladin?

Cause if your argument is that a single dwarf paladin will hit less than a rogue and a fighter, you're right!

But then, you could also craft a scenario where the paladin has reach tacwarlord back-up, and then things change to a lot more even. Cause... paladins do actually synergize VERY well with warlords.

Also, never mind the fact you're comparing an optimised for accuracy striker vs a non-optimised for accuracy defender. It's like saying that an optimized Sorcerer is a better AoE chucker than an Avenger, and therefore all characters should get standardized AoEs.

It's a rediculous argument, and foolish to even consider on these merits.

And while I'm exaggerating a bit, something close to this scenario did happen in one of my games (the rogue had backstabber not expertise).

You're exagerating a lot.

A standardized attack bonus could definitely be a good thing.

Why? Please explain this point. The attribute system encourages certain races for certain classes without denying every race, it gives benefits outside of combat (you do know the game isn't only combat, right?) based on attributes, giving certain characters niches that others don't have so much, and it gives you scores you can point to and say 'This guy is dumb, but he's very likeable.'

You know... the seeds of roleplay.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yeah, ability scores are about roleplay more than anything else. I have no desire to see their effects debased any more than they are and eliminating them is right out in my book. They're really the beating heart of how you visualize what your character is.

Its OK to have different ways to apply different abilities to solve the same problems for different builds, but the whole point is it represents different approaches to solving problems and each way of doing it has its own strengths and weaknesses.

And lets be real, as long as there are choices available to players some players will make better choices for a given situation than others will. Its easy to put all PCs on a level playing field, just eliminate all numbers entirely and give nobody a choice about anything. Sure, that will be a real winner of an RPG...

 

[ValhallaGH]

Why? Please explain this point.

A Standardized attack bonus could be a good thing. Because:

• It would standardize PC attack rates, making the math of PC attack rates consistent from PC to PC, allowing for smoother estimation of combat encounter difficulty.
• It would lock in the attack bonus at or very close to the enjoyment "sweet spot" of 70% hit rate against same level foes.
• It allows tactics and teamwork to really shine, making character optimization more a matter of game play than a matter of build selection. Build selection is still important but no longer the key to hitting with powers.
• It allows for heroic "desperate gambles" where a PC uses a highly inferior attack (with a good chance of some success) because circumstances prevent the use of their normal attacks.
• It encourages sub-optimal builds by guaranteeing a useful attack bonus with all attacks, even for characters built against type.
• It allows players to decide that a particular character doesn't need a 24+ in a given ability score to continue adventuring, and would be better represented (you know, for role play) by having developed into a paragon of overall perfection (i.e. 18 in all scores).
• It still allows variation between attack bonuses, by not eliminating proficiency bonuses and class features. It merely restricts the variation to an amount that is reasonable given a variable of 20.

I think that all of the above vastly outweighs the negatives, but that's my opinion and others are free to disagree. However, the above points are facts; the logical (positive) consequences of instituting a standardized attack bonus.