The Pros and Cons of flat attack progression

[Sunseeker]

They'll be impressive on the battlefield because they'll have (roughly) the same to hit as, say, a cleric, but they'll do more damage and be able to trip, disarm, or otherwise hinder their opponents. At least, that's how I read it.

Thaumaturge.

You know, for all the games I've played I can still count the number of trip, disarm, and other CBM attempts on one hand. Unless there is some serious benefit to doing these things, I don't see people being any more inclined to do them.

[MENTION=82555]the[/MENTION] OP: Flatter math doesn't eliminate magic-item dependency, if anything it makes magic items, especially those with +hit bonuses even more game-breaking. If between level 1 and level 20 you only get say, str mod to hit(which on a good day is +5), then getting another +1 or +1 is a HUGE deal, you're literally increasing your to-hit ability by half. Compared to between level 1 and 20 I get +20 to hit, well now even a +5 only barely begins to impact my ability to hit.

Furthermore, I don't see the value in keeping monsters around longer, if I want my lvl15 party to face some orcs, I'll cook up some damn tough orcs that will challenge them.
"Look guys, you're facing more orcs!"
"Didn't we just fight some orcs?"
Honestly, if any game throws the same set of monsters at me without some really good plot to make up why, I'm wondering why I'm not watching LOTR and wasting my time here?

Adding "more stuff to do" begs the question: will they actually use it? I can't disarm a giant spider, probably can't trip it either. At high level, many of the CMDs(based on my pahtfinder experience) are high enough that even the most skilled CMB isn't going to overcome it. It's probably easier to just Evasculate the monster a couple times than trip it. As I mentioned above, I can still count the number of CBM's in my gaming life on one hand.

 

[Thaumaturge]

You know, for all the games I've played I can still count the number of trip, disarm, and other CBM attempts on one hand. Unless there is some serious benefit to doing these things, I don't see people being any more inclined to do them.

I've seen significantly more than that, but you a right in that it often seemed suboptimal to trip or disarm when hitting for more damage was a thing that could happen.

What if, however, my 4th level fighter just charged a guy and can now, without sacrificing any other attacks or damage potential, trip said guy? If its something my character can do in addition to attacking not in place of attacking, I, for one, would use it as often as possible.

My only concern would be that tripping, disarming, or other maneuvers need to have quick resolution, if they are used frequently.

Thaumaturge.

 

[kitsune9]

I think loss of differentiation between levels of ability is a pretty big con. I'm also talking about the ability to trade attack bonuses for other benefits like defense or damage.

One of the nice things about a fighter type's high BAB in 3e was that he could trade it for AC with Combat Expertise or for damage with Power Attack. As the character with the highest attack bonus, he could make use of this more than any PC with a lesser BAB progression. That was a nice benefit.

I'm not oppose to a flattening of the power curve. But I'm not in favor of getting rid of it completely.

Agreed. Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

"Much flatter than 3E/4E" is not necessarily "flat lining." If, for example, you did an otherwise 4E clone with +1 every five levels, instead of every two levels (adjusting monster math accordingly), you would get a lot of the benefits of the flatter progression without necessarily going completely flat.

Just getting this in now to link back to on 5E launch, when we have a few diehards screaming about "WotC lied to us!"

 

[Sunseeker]

I've seen significantly more than that, but you a right in that it often seemed suboptimal to trip or disarm when hitting for more damage was a thing that could happen.

What if, however, my 4th level fighter just charged a guy and can now, without sacrificing any other attacks or damage potential, trip said guy? If its something my character can do in addition to attacking not in place of attacking, I, for one, would use it as often as possible.

My only concern would be that tripping, disarming, or other maneuvers need to have quick resolution, if they are used frequently.

Thaumaturge.

Yes, if certain CBM's came part and parcel with certain attacks, or could be made as part through feats(which in some case they are), that would be one way to get more people to attempt them. However, resolution would have to be cleaner. If power attack had the chance to knock an enemy down, if it could break their weapon.

Fighters are already lagging in terms of utility, so sacrificing the one of thing they do for a really tricky and not super-useful thing to do is an obviously bad trade.

 

[nightwalker450]

Honestly, if any game throws the same set of monsters at me without some really good plot to make up why, I'm wondering why I'm not watching LOTR and wasting my time here?

Yeah because in LOTR they fought a lot of things besides orcs... After all they had to deal with... Tougher orcs.

And that's the thing, if you're going to have your adventure in a small region (not globe/plane trotting), it makes sense that you'll find the same things many times. If you spend most of your time fighting orcs/goblins, it makes the giant or dragon really stand out when it comes time for that. Otherwise giants are just the new orc, and you'll be fighting them until you reach the level where you get the next version of level appropriate creature.

 

[Sunseeker]

Yeah because in LOTR they fought a lot of things besides orcs... After all they had to deal with... Tougher orcs.

I think you're reading my point backwards. What I mean is that if I'm essentially playing LOTR(an idea I find dreadfully boring), why don't I just save myself the boredom and go watch it? I like games that present some diversity. I can understand fighting lots of orcs because the setting demands it, but even so, there's got to be something to keep me engaged.

And that's the thing, if you're going to have your adventure in a small region (not globe/plane trotting), it makes sense that you'll find the same things many times. If you spend most of your time fighting orcs/goblins, it makes the giant or dragon really stand out when it comes time for that. Otherwise giants are just the new orc, and you'll be fighting them until you reach the level where you get the next version of level appropriate creature.

Sure, but if your adventure remains in a small location, then you don't need level progression anyway. You can start the game @ lvl 2 and end the game at lvl 3. Needing to go 1-20 for an adventure that never leaves the local forest is unnecessary. I don't think we need to throw a hundred onions at the player just to make the one grapefruit stand out. The issue of a dragon is in the presentation, even orcs can be interesting if the presentation is good. The problem is: they're usually not. Orcs, goblins, bandits, wolves, ect... they're generally used as cannon fodder. The DM, much like Sauron, throws as many of them at your party as they can without even so much as a "hello" first.

Dragons are interesting because DMs take the time to make them interesting. Goblins and orcs are boring because they're thrown at you en-masse with no ceremony at all.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

As said elsewhere:

-not automatically going up

and

- not going up

are different terms.

AC never went up before 4e, but it was really assumed in 3rd. In ADnD AC increases happened rather randomly.
And a rogue with really high thac0 could hit higher level monsters on reasoable numbers. A fighter got ahead. This is the important thing. The fighter was actually getting better at overcoming the AC of his opponent. And that was actually all he got. And many people loved this class.

I would like a flat assumed progression. Maybe there is some mechanic doing so. I will test this idea and will see if I like it.

 

[Ratskinner]

Plus, as some posters have already hinted at, flat math puts a lot of extra pressure on them to create level-up goodies that require creativity and play testing. And nobody working a deadline wants that.

Maybe that's why the playtest will be open?.....really...really open?

 

[Ratskinner]

Dragons are interesting because DMs take the time to make them interesting. Goblins and orcs are boring because they're thrown at you en-masse with no ceremony at all.

Sez you. I think you might find some of the games I've been in enlightening. The amount of interest anything provides is highly dependent on the amount of thought the DM puts into it. If the DM focuses on a war with nearby humanoids, that war and those humanoids can be really interesting...even if the whole war takes place in one valley. Interesting enough for about 8 levels in 2e, IME. (I honestly don't get to see much D&D beyond 10th, then again most people don't seem to.)