The Half-Level Bonus - Angel or Devil?

[Betote]

So it does not really bother me in the least. The higher lv party will never encounter challenges which will stymie only a low lv party. And the mechanics are such that it ensures that there will be at least a 15-20 point disparity in skill lvs between the PCs. So that 1/2 lv bonus to skills alone can never suffice.

But then, why have any level bonus at all? If you're going to present your PCs with challenges balanced to their level/efectiveness, to add +1 to bonuses and to DCs is just redundant.

Wouldn't it be better just giving them the bonuses at 1st level and that's all? Because if bonuses and DCs (I'm talking primarily about skill and ability checks here) are going to go up at the exact same rate, it's just the same as the vilified 2e Non-Weapon Proficiencies, but with more meaningless maths.

 

[jasin]

It's just a weird situation when the wizard who has never picked up a blade can hit an opponent more effectively with that weapon than a fighter.

Isn't this exactly like in 3E?

 

[Merlin the Tuna]

Isn't this exactly like in 3E?

Yes. The more problematic (for some) issue is that the high level Wizard can Climb/Jump/Swim better than the low level Fighter.

I don't have any problems with it. Using levels as the primary method of mechanical advancement (as all editions of D&D have done) leads to high level guys dwarfing low level guys. That's kind of the point. If I wanted a game where I had to do something a million times to improve at it, I'd play... well, probably World of Warcraft, honestly. But a points-based system like GURPS is probably more relevant a comparison in this case.

But in D&D? That 10th level Wizard can already get punched in the face by bigger baddies than the 1st level Fighter, despite always being the weenie of the group. He can already clunk people with his staff as well as a 1st level Fighter. (And, as an aside, with these two factors combined, he can likely clunk the Fighter unconscious in Rock-Em-Sock-Em-Robot-style melee combat without casting a spell with some frequency) Is it a huge leap for me to say that he can jump better than the 1st level Fighter? Not really. He's already better in every other way; that was the idea all along.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

But then, why have any level bonus at all? If you're going to present your PCs with challenges balanced to their level/efectiveness, to add +1 to bonuses and to DCs is just redundant.

Wouldn't it be better just giving them the bonuses at 1st level and that's all? Because if bonuses and DCs (I'm talking primarily about skill and ability checks here) are going to go up at the exact same rate, it's just the same as the vilified 2e Non-Weapon Proficiencies, but with more meaningless maths.

Because, in a lot of cases, static DCs still exist. A running jump moves you one square per five of the jump check. Monster Knowledge checks as per the Monster Manual have static DCs, as do the most common uses of the Heal skill.


As for scaling difficulty and the world at large, it helps to give things a little thought. A level 16 Rogue isn't going to be challenged by any common lock. If that Rogue wanted to break into a mundane merchant company's warehouse, or into the lockbox of the average noble, as a DM I wouldn't even ask for a roll. A level 16 Rogue is powerful enough to affect the fate of nations for christ's sake. A lock on whose opening the fate of a nation hangs in the balance WILL have a scaled up DC, and those sort of locks are what adventure design as per the DMG is concerned with. A door with a standard lock you could buy at Wal-Mart doesn't warrant any mention beyond writing "after Lidda picks the ridiculously easy lock, you see ahead of you..." into the location descriptions.

 

[Betote]

Isn't this exactly like in 3E?

3e:
10th level wizard: BAB +5 Str +0. Total bonus: +5 to hit, +0 to damage.
1st level fighter: BAB +1, Str +3, Weapon Focus +1. Total bonus: +5 to hit, +3 to damage.

4e:
15th level wizard: level +7, Str +0, Dagger +3. Total bonus: +10 to hit, +0 to damage.
1st level fighter: level +0, Str +3, FWT +1, Longsword +3. Total bonus: +7 to hit, +3 to damage.

I used a 15th level wizard for the 4e example because the level ranges are 1-20 in 3e and 1-30 in 4e, so it seemed fair to me to use the same proportional level.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Yes. The more problematic (for some) issue is that the high level Wizard can Climb/Jump/Swim better than the low level Fighter.

I don't have any problems with it. Using levels as the primary method of mechanical advancement (as all editions of D&D have done) leads to high level guys dwarfing low level guys. That's kind of the point. If I wanted a game where I had to do something a million times to improve at it, I'd play... well, probably World of Warcraft, honestly. But a points-based system like GURPS is probably more relevant a comparison in this case.

But in D&D? That 10th level Wizard can already get punched in the face by bigger baddies than the 1st level Fighter, despite always being the weenie of the group. He can already clunk people with his staff as well as a 1st level Fighter. (And, as an aside, with these two factors combined, he can likely clunk the Fighter unconscious in Rock-Em-Sock-Em-Robot-style melee combat without casting a spell with some frequency) Is it a huge leap for me to say that he can jump better than the 1st level Fighter? Not really. He's already better in every other way; that was the idea all along.

Climb/Swim/Jump are generic adventuring skills, and to some extent, everything on the skill list is as well. A level 10 Wizard has spent months/years adventuring, falling into rivers, scaling cliffs, and having to hop over holes in the ground. Think about it, you've spent years of your life travelling the wilderness, decending into dangerous underground locales, getting into rather entertaining trouble, ect. To me, it makes less sense that a level 10 Wizard would have learned nothing after gaining nine levels.

 

[MerricB]

a wizard becomes quite the defensive expert, can perform acrobatic and athletics on par with less exposed but highly dextrous or strong characters, and can all of a sudden attack better with a weapon than a 1st level fighter hero who's been doing it since they were young (even without having ever picked up a sword).

I really, really must be missing something here.

Your 1st level fighter Hero (18 Str) has a +11 bonus to hit with a longsword, can use it with 4 exploits, and probably has a bonus to damage from a feat.

Your 10th level wizard (10 Str) has a +5 bonus to hit with a longsword, and has no exploits he can use it with.

At level 20, the Wizard begins to have an attack bonus somewhere close to the 1st level fighter with that longsword.

Meanwhile, your 1st level Rogue (18 Dex) has a +9 to Thievery. The 10th level Wizard (14 Dex) has a +7 to Thievery, so gets on par by level 14...

Cheers!

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Isn't this exactly like in 3E?

Pretty much, unless the wizard multi-classed in lots of +0 BAB classes/prestige classes. As I've said, in-game, the improvements in play from the half-level bonus are there to see. It's more the theoretical/flavour side that I don't like. I'd just like to have my cake and eat it too I suppose.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

It's just a weird situation when the wizard who has never picked up a blade can hit an opponent more effectively with that weapon than a fighter. I suppose the thing is, the wizard completely changed from previous versions into something different, but with the same title.

The level bonus is entirely undescribed in its flavor.

You can say your Wizard trained at the weapon use in his adventures. Or he just uses some subtle magic to augment his sword-fighting tricks- maybe a small divination that tells him where to strike, or an affect that shortly makes him stronger.

It takes getting used to the idea that you can - and maybe should - attach a flavor to the half-level bonus that matches your idea of the character. In some cases, your Wizard might really be good at swinging his sword, because he trained with the Fighter. In others he's just applying raw magical energy to get the same effect as a Fighter. In even others, he is just using his superior intellect to predict movements and strike where and when it hurts...

 

[Betote]

Because, in a lot of cases, static DCs still exist. A running jump moves you one square per five of the jump check. Monster Knowledge checks as per the Monster Manual have static DCs, as do the most common uses of the Heal skill.

So you have the worst of both worlds: in some cases it makes no difference, and in some others it makes no sense. Way to go

As for scaling difficulty and the world at large, it helps to give things a little thought. A level 16 Rogue isn't going to be challenged by any common lock. If that Rogue wanted to break into a mundane merchant company's warehouse, or into the lockbox of the average noble, as a DM I wouldn't even ask for a roll. A level 16 Rogue is powerful enough to affect the fate of nations for christ's sake. A lock on whose opening the fate of a nation hangs in the balance WILL have a scaled up DC, and those sort of locks are what adventure design as per the DMG is concerned with. A door with a standard lock you could buy at Wal-Mart doesn't warrant any mention beyond writing "after Lidda picks the ridiculously easy lock, you see ahead of you..." into the location descriptions.

That's it, you have to create PC-centered stories so the rules can make any sense. Because what you said for Lidda the Rogue is also applicable to Brightscale the Warlock. I don't have any problems with a level 16 rogue not being challenged by any common lock, but I do have problems with level 16 warlocks not being challenged by any common lock.

Although, thinking it twice, it DOES make sense. After all, a WARlock should be able to overcome any plain lock

(Please shoot me.)