The Half-Level Bonus - Angel or Devil?

[Runestar]

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.

Don't look at me. I didn't write or design the game, I merely play it. My point is simply that the wizard's +10 to open locks may very well be +0, considering that he will never succeed on anything with it, save for the occasional aid-another attempt.

Adding 1/2 character lv seems better, but at closer inspection, I personally feel that it is really no different from 3e, which did not auto-boost your skills at all. DnD is a system which rewards overwhelming specialization in a particular role. Either you go out of your way to pump said skill (thus ensuring a good chance of success), or you don't bother about it at all (meaning you don't invest any ranks in it, leaving it at zero) and leave said task to the other party members. Anything in between is a waste, IMO (from a mechanical POV, I won't touch on rp purposes), barring a few personal-only skills like concentration or autohynopsis.

Remove the 1/2 lv bonus, and lower defenses/DCs/AC/attack rolls by that same amount. You will find that games should play more or less the same. It simply looks good and makes your character feel good, but I find it has no practical applications beyond that.

I disagree with your disparity of at least 15-20 points as a baseline and usual. I think you will find the numbers closer than that on the majority of skills, particularly at lower levels.

At 1st lv, an elf cleric can have a spot check of +15 (+5 trained, +4 wis, +3 skill focus, +2 racial, +1 background), as contrasted with another PC who did not bother training it, and had a wis of 10 (like a swordmage). Likewise, if another member of my party has put so much effort into tricking out spot, why then should anyone else bother with pumping said skill? Said cleric is going to automatically succeed on any passive (read: take10) check, so there is no need for anyone else to make spot checks of their own, much less invest in it.

This disparity will only grow, as the cleric continues to boost his wis, and acquires magic items which boost the relevant skills. 20 is already considered conservative, IMO. So while everyone gets +1spot every 2 lvs, in reality, only the cleric is going to care about such a bonus, the rest will be like "nice, but not needed", since they will not be bothered with spot checks in the first place!

However, as you most likely guessed, I'm not a fan of relative DCs based upon party level. The lock on the church door ain't going to be changing DC just to be a challenge for the party. It is what it is what it is. The half-level bonus most likely goes against such sandbox style play I suppose.

Let me put it this way.

What will happen if you set the DC of a lock such that it is considered a "fair challenge" for the wizard? That is right, the wizard is still not going to try and open it. Rather, the party rogue with a 100% chance of success will be able to bypass it with no problems whatsoever.

Each PC is likely going to have certain skills they excel in (and others they suck at). There is really no running away from this. The DCs will have to be determined according to who can best attempt it, rather than the worst candidate. And in this sense, the 1/2 lv bonus neither adds anything nor takes away anything from it. It is just as good as not existing.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I really like it, still. I am critical of 4e where it deserves it, but this was a really good fix, and it deserves this praise, too.

I'm comfortable with 10 levels giving you a broad range of experience in pretty much everything, or in at least cross-pollinating enough so that you can achieve a basic level of skill. Sort of: that wizard from the desert might not know how to swim, but he's well aware of the properties of ice and frost from his studies and can apply these to get a sort of limited buoyancy with his vestigial magical energy that hangs around him. The fighter might not know what an arcane chant looks like, but he's been adventuring for 10 levels, he's going to be at least passingly familiar with the concept of wizards throwing fireballs, because he's SEEN it (or things similar enough to it).

This has the side effect of you being able to throw a mountain at the party that would be impossible for the local farmers to climb, and have them climb it, regardless of if they've trained their lives for it or not. It lets the DM have a lot more flexibility in terms of planning adventures.

The alternative is a system that basically abandons the class/level set up, at least to some degree. A sort of "improve on what you do" system, while very organic, would be quite limiting, and it exposes those "automatic success or automatic failure" binary problems.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

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



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.)

Warlocks are one of two classes that have Thievery as a class skill actually. A level 16 Cleric with 11 Dexterity is going to have a Thievery of about +7. A first level Rogue beats that without breaking a sweat. That's enough to handle a fairly easy lock, and is reasonable for somebody who has been adventuring for that long.

The thing is, having to create PC-centered stories so the rules can make any sense is looking at things in terms of the glass being half empty. The fact is, common mundane skill checks are trivial at that point and fade into the background and stop being significant to the story. Wal Mart Locks, leaping over 5ft square pits, sneaking up on drunken sleeping guards, intimidating common ruffians, and using the sun to determine direction are now background information and roleplaying instead of active checks. The adventure lies in facing things that are challenging for 16th level characters, and that is where the dice get involved. If you're still mucking around with mundane things at level 16, something is wrong with your game.

 

[Betote]

The thing is, having to create PC-centered stories so the rules can make any sense is looking at things in terms of the glass being half empty. The fact is, common mundane skill checks are trivial at that point and fade into the background and stop being significant to the story. Wal Mart Locks, leaping over 5ft square pits, sneaking up on drunken sleeping guards, intimidating common ruffians, and using the sun to determine direction are now background information and roleplaying instead of active checks. The adventure lies in facing things that are challenging for 16th level characters, and that is where the dice get involved. If you're still mucking around with mundane things at level 16, something is wrong with your game.

Thanks for telling me that I'm not having fun. Without your advice, I'd never had known that the things I think spice up a story are in fact "something wrong"

 

[Allister]

Isn't this exactly like in 3E?

No.

This has been true since 1E and the fact that a 20th level wizard buck naked could pick up a sword and stomp a 1st level fighter into the ground.

The 1/2 level bonus is good because it allows for more room IN CASE you don't have a specialist.

While the super-specialist will auto-succeed, which is fine I believe, the guy that just has a decent stat and is trained and the guy who just knows a little can stll have a chance at level-appropriate challenges like climbing.

Personally, I like the fact that everything scales since previous versions of D&D assumed that even the wizard picked up enough fighting skills just by being around the melee guys.

Why not assume that everyone else picks up the skills in their downtime and on the campaign trail?

 

[Imp]

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.

Yeah, this is a pretty good way to sell the level bonus as believable... the wizard has all these little arcane powers he can bring to bear, the cleric's just so blessed that the lock pops open for him, etc. It may not work in all cases but in general it helps finesse things.

 

[Greg K]

I detest it for ability checks or skill checks. Mixed on it for AC.