D&D 4E suggestions for 4e ideas easy enough to HR now?
- Thread starter evilbob
- Start date
ruleslawyer
Registered User
Yes, but that's in 3e. If 4e is aiming to strip out the Christmas tree, then BAB starts looking like a very big bonus.Wulf Ratbane said:
Here's a sample 3.5 creature (cribbed from the post on 3.5 CotSQ conversions over on gleemax):
J.Grenemeyer said:
So, this bad boy has some serious protective gear (+5 studded leather, +5 ring of protection). More AC bonuses than attack bonuses, right? Not amazing BAB, Strength good, but not anything extraordinary for his level or compared to Dex. Nonetheless, he can hit himself on a 3. Now let's assume that WotC is trying to lower dependence on gear and remove iterative attacks from BAB. Suddenly, you've got an even worse disparity on your hands than the 3e situation gives. So some sort of defense bonus is necessary.
The problem is that AC "outpaces" BAB at low levels (something that I have little trouble with, since AC is a necessary defense at low levels given the lack of ablatives like high hp) and then drops away compared to BAB.
Wulf Ratbane
Adventurer
ruleslawyer said:
If 4e strips out +5 armor and +5 greataxes, I'll eat my hat.
Removing the Christmas Tree <> removing magic armor and weapons.
JohnSnow
Hero
Wulf Ratbane said:
True, but the +5 armor directly offsets the +5 weapon.
For optimum playability, I'd say there should be about a five point discrepancy between AC and Attack Bonus. Assuming equal ability scores, one character's dex bonus to defense/AC offsets his opponent's attack bonus from strength, or dex, or whatever.
By giving a 5 point advantage to AC from good armor (chain, let's say), you implement the 5 point discrepancy we want for optimal play.
If all else is equal, a character hits if he rolls a 15. By scaling a defense bonus with BAB, you keep that same number for success against characters of equal level. Your +2 sword serves to negate your opponent's +2 armor.
The 4e classes probably provide a level 1 "kicker" to BAB and Defenses, like +1, +2, or +3. And those almost certainly vary from class to class. So a rogue and ranger might get maximum use out of lighter armor, whereas a fighter and paladin probably benefit more from armor.
Conversely, it might be that AC and Reflex Defense don't get the same kicker. So a character might get his Ref Defense kicker from his class but his AC kicker comes entirely from his armor.
I don't know all the available design space, but it's considerable. However, as long as each character ends up with his defense getting about 5-6 points ahead of the common attack bonus for his level and staying there, the sweet spot is preserved. All the other stuff is measure and countermeasure, and they can be kept relatively well balanced. It also leaves a fair amount of variability in the numbers. Even lacking a +3 sword, a character only has "less of a chance" to hit his opponent.
Wulf Ratbane
Adventurer
Good post, John.
ruleslawyer
Registered User
Very true. I was, in fact, responding to your point about the *number* of available bonuses to AC as opposed to attack. +x armor and +x weapons are only part of the picture and, as JohnSnow just noted, they even each other out anyway. The problem is when you have a character with armor +armor enhancement +nat armor +Dex +deflection who *still* gets hit on a 2 by a CR-appropriate opponent. The major issue is that AC doesn't scale *unless* you have a ton of magic in the game, whereas attack bonuses scale directly, and *a lot* by level.Wulf Ratbane said:
Now, a player can munch AC like crazy and get it into the 50s by high level, but that just shows the problem more clearly: The math on AC and attacks is overly wonky in 3e, and it's hard to adequately manage in game play. Moreover, the range of available ACs, and their tenuous and non-scaling relation to attack bonuses, means that at most levels, tactical choices like fighting defensively are basically moot.
Making AC and attacks scale on an equal curve solves those problems. I can *know* that my +5 armor evens the odds vs. my prospective opponent's +5 weapon. I don't have to pile on bonuses from 15 different sources in order to actually lower my chance of being hit below 95%. And so on.
Take Iron Heroes, for instance. There are precisely three ways to increase base defense (AC) in that game:
1) Level-based defense bonus
2) Dex
3) Shield.
Everything else is a tactical choice: Do I fight defensively? Do I give up defense for a stronger attack using a defense challenge? Do I use a feat like Combat Expertise or Dodge? Because defense and attack scale relatively cleanly and in tandem, these become meaningful, transparent choices.
In my current game, the most defense-focused PC (an armiger with strong focus in shield use) has a defense of 23. An equal-level harrier (basically a finesse/speed fighter type) can match this without the shield. A CR-appropriate opponent (these are 8th-level PCs) should have an attack bonus of about +10-15, which allows a hit on a mid-range die roll. That is the right math to aim for at all levels. It makes fighting defensively et al meaningful, and allows for specialized characters to raise or lower their defense within a respectable range without throwing all the math out of whack.
Or what John said.
Wulf Ratbane
Adventurer
Well, as I said before, in my experience-- again, in campaigns without the Big Six across the board for all PCs-- getting hit with the full BAB was a foregone conclusion, and high AC served primarily to mitigate iterative attacks.
With iterative attacks out of the picture, it's quite possible (even probable) that the mitigating factor for rapidly scaling BAB is rapidly scaling hit points. Combat thus becomes less a boolean exercise and more ablative (as it should be, IMO).
Thanks for the replies, guys. Good food for thought.
With iterative attacks out of the picture, it's quite possible (even probable) that the mitigating factor for rapidly scaling BAB is rapidly scaling hit points. Combat thus becomes less a boolean exercise and more ablative (as it should be, IMO).
Thanks for the replies, guys. Good food for thought.
evilbob
Adventurer
So besides the long AC discussion, the only other new idea I've noticed in the last page or so is the "second wind" idea, especially potentially changed to include "regaining a spell slot" or daily use of an ability. That seems like an interesting idea: for a full-round action, you can regain X HP (using the Saga example, you get 1/4th HP when under 1/2 HP) OR 1 spell slot (maybe any other than the highest you can cast?) OR 1 use of a X/day ability.
I also like the idea of allowing bards to DO things while they're also giving bonuses; I think it's probably ballanced enough using just that idea, but even if the bard needed to give up part of his bonus in order to be more active, it's worth it in my opinion.
As for the AC discussion, I'd have to call that one a "hard to integrate" idea. Sure, it seems straight-forward enough, but I don't see how it would work unless you took away all magical AC boosting properties of armor and all +X AC items. And it would -still- give a massive boost to casters - as well as throwing off the current gold mechanic, since less money would need to be spent on AC boosters.
I also like the idea of allowing bards to DO things while they're also giving bonuses; I think it's probably ballanced enough using just that idea, but even if the bard needed to give up part of his bonus in order to be more active, it's worth it in my opinion.
As for the AC discussion, I'd have to call that one a "hard to integrate" idea. Sure, it seems straight-forward enough, but I don't see how it would work unless you took away all magical AC boosting properties of armor and all +X AC items. And it would -still- give a massive boost to casters - as well as throwing off the current gold mechanic, since less money would need to be spent on AC boosters.
JohnSnow
Hero
Coming from you Wulf, that compliment means a lot. But I'm enjoying the conversation, so I'll respond further.
Just a little more food for thought, since I couldn't put all my thoughts in the previous post, and this triggered some of the ones I'd left dormant.
It's been suggested (or stated?) that BAB and Defenses escalate uniformly for all classes. That's a HUGE step in the direction of balance. Then you can give each class a different attack style, potentially relying on a different attributes and targeting different defenses. For instance Wizards making intelligence-based magical attacks that can target Ref, or Will, or Fort Defense. Fighters, by contrast, are more likely to make a strength-based attack against AC.
Balance is a matter of keeping those class bonus differentiations to reasonable levels, so that they don't become ridiculous. That way, something that's challenging for the fighter is still achievable for the wizard or rogue.
By having damage escalate alongside hit points, combat at higher levels becomes a matter of scale. For instance, let's assume the following:
1st level fighter: 33 hp, Avg dmg per hit: 8.5 (1d8 + 4)
That assumes a Str bonus of +3, and a level bonus to damage of +1. It also assumes triple hit die at level 1 and a Con bonus of +3. That means that the fighter takes down himself with 4 average damage hits. If the fighter hit about 40% of the time (die roll of 13+), combat would last around 10 rounds. Using your combat powers can probably cut that almost in half. To keep that same ratio of damage per attack to hit points, you'd have to make sure that the base damage scaled more or less in line with average hit points. Or that you had more powers to use to increase damage.
That's certainly doable, but the math could get pretty complicated, and it might require revisiting certain sacred cows (like hit points per level). Be interesting to see how 4e handles all of it.
Wulf Ratbane said:
Just a little more food for thought, since I couldn't put all my thoughts in the previous post, and this triggered some of the ones I'd left dormant.
It's been suggested (or stated?) that BAB and Defenses escalate uniformly for all classes. That's a HUGE step in the direction of balance. Then you can give each class a different attack style, potentially relying on a different attributes and targeting different defenses. For instance Wizards making intelligence-based magical attacks that can target Ref, or Will, or Fort Defense. Fighters, by contrast, are more likely to make a strength-based attack against AC.
Balance is a matter of keeping those class bonus differentiations to reasonable levels, so that they don't become ridiculous. That way, something that's challenging for the fighter is still achievable for the wizard or rogue.
By having damage escalate alongside hit points, combat at higher levels becomes a matter of scale. For instance, let's assume the following:
1st level fighter: 33 hp, Avg dmg per hit: 8.5 (1d8 + 4)
That assumes a Str bonus of +3, and a level bonus to damage of +1. It also assumes triple hit die at level 1 and a Con bonus of +3. That means that the fighter takes down himself with 4 average damage hits. If the fighter hit about 40% of the time (die roll of 13+), combat would last around 10 rounds. Using your combat powers can probably cut that almost in half. To keep that same ratio of damage per attack to hit points, you'd have to make sure that the base damage scaled more or less in line with average hit points. Or that you had more powers to use to increase damage.
That's certainly doable, but the math could get pretty complicated, and it might require revisiting certain sacred cows (like hit points per level). Be interesting to see how 4e handles all of it.
Similar Threads
