Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5606019" data-attributes="member: 82106">Not at all, do you think your first level PC can win a fight against a level 12 dragon that is at least nominally doing DPH 20 vs his DPH of what, 10? That the dragons 500 hit points will run out before he monches the whole party? I doubt it. In any case these values can be adjusted somewhat if they aren't dead on, we are free to make some changes. The INTERESTING part is, that with this setup the low level party CAN do some appreciable damage to the dragon, whereas in the current system they can't even hit it at all. Right, it is primarily driven by stat bumps, though as things have progressed other factors have come more to the front. Still, a PC with a skill in a non-bumping stat is going to fall so far behind they can barely even attempt hard tasks at high level. The new DC charts help, but it is still a royal PITA and makes group checks at high level sort of silly. Removing this issue allows for say a Perceptive Rogue without the player constantly needing to 'garden' his skill with feats/items/utilities (or take the unlikely step of boosting an otherwise useless stat). I mean if you made the choice to be good at something at level 1 you shouldn't have to constantly keep making that same choice again through levels, just let it stick. Agreed. My contention from the start was only that the issues with 4e are deep and if you are really going to fix them you have to start with the core of the game and thus you can't just 'fix 4e' unless you make 5e... I have no intention of buying into a 5e at this point either, or a real desire to see one except in a sort of theoretical sense. lol. I guess I can write. I make no claims and have nothing to brag about. I'm sure there are much better writers than I right here in this thread, if not in this post. OTOH I am tempted to do up a little testbed one of these days. Now if you had a dime for everyone that has said that, you'd be beyond wealthy...A Kobold has maybe 20 hit points and does probably on average 9 damage on a hit. A beholder probably has say 800 hit points, does say 8d10 damage and sets you on fire for ongoing 20 fire damage on a hit (and gets 9 attacks a turn, or whatever, its a beholder, it wouldn't be any less bad-assed than they are now). Remember, it isn't being hard to hit that makes the beholder nasty, to-hits will be the same either way.That being said I don't see why there cannot be better defenses for the higher level monsters, just on a much smaller basis. Assuming PCs are likely to have ways to get attack bonuses to SOME degree at higher levels then defenses can increase somewhat, but lets imagine that being say in the range of 5 points total in 30 levels, which means a level 1 PC can still at least nick a high level opponent (though really if it were 10 points in 30 levels no big deal, the point being you don't as a player have to constantly scrounge for attack bonuses or as the DM constantly hand PCs new ones). Actually I'd say something like 3-5 points over 30 levels would be great. A character that doesn't concentrate on melee will still have a chance with a dagger in a tight spot, but the experts will easily keep up against appropriate monsters and hit say 5 points better against weaker ones, which makes it virtually an auto-hit, but not quite.You're flipping coins now, except you're restricted to a very narrow range of opponents you can put against a party due to increasing defense/to-hit. Actually there'd be no real need for minion->standard->elite->solo either under this rule. A 'solo' is just a much over leveled monster, which logically actually makes more sense and is just as playable. You can still design monsters to be used in specific types of encounters, so the CONCEPT of a 'solo' can certainly still exist, it just no longer needs special rules. Minions might still be special, but that's OK. Just the more you look at it the more simplification this kind of change brings, and there is really just no huge argument against it except "but it was always like X". I mean I understand the concern about depicting higher level PCs as 'epic' or whatever, but I think there's plenty of room to do that still. Hit points increase, damage increases, other powers, tricks, items, whatever will presumably accrue to the character over time. And as I said, defenses and attack CAN go up some, just not a lot. So imagine your level 1 guy takes on a level 3 orc. This is a tough fight. He's likely to get clobbered. He can usually hit the orc, and he can do enough damage to it he'll kill it eventually, probably in 3-4 hits say. Meanwhile the orc does fairly good damage to him too and hits about the same, so it may kill him in 2-3 rounds (being slightly higher level than he is). Now, when said character is say 12th level the orc is hitting maybe 10% less often and doing only minor damage as the character has 3x the hit points he did at level 1, and in return he's hitting 10% more often and doing 2x more damage than before. The best the orc can hope for is to knock him down a surge or two and it will be lucky to survive 3 rounds. A level 30 character will just breath hard at the orc and it will die, though 100 orcs would still be scary, until said character turns on his 15 damage resist or flies or whatever bad-assery he does at that level that leaves the orcs in the dust.Honestly it isn't THAT much different from how things worked in AD&D, especially 1e. Granted there WERE to-hit bonuses by levels, but the curve was shallower and I think it actually worked better. I think a flat to-hit would work fine.</blockquote>

Verification