The Pros and Cons of flat attack progression

[Minigiant]

Already balanced. If the cleric favors Strength over other abilities (say Wisdom for example), then so be it. Fighter might be favoring Dex over Str, or may favor something else entirely. Nothing needs to be added to balance it..

My point is with flatter math, it makes it easier to get to unexpected results. A few good rolls of the dice for ability or too high a point buy and something could break. Cast the wrong buff spell or find the wrong item and poof! their/cleric/druid/wizard/farmer/housecat is a better warrior than the fighter.

If feats are still in, perhaps Skill Focus on whatever skill(s) you want to excel at. No need to scale skills/DCs to high numbers like before.

That sounds like a feat tax. My level 20 rogue/bard/assassin/ranger should have to take 3 feats to do epic stuff.

 

[Sunseeker]

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.)

Sure, it's just been my experience that Goblins and Orcs don't get very good treatment. Humans do, but that's sort of because the setting demands it what with they're usually using humans in place of other fantasy races, so it's a bit of an exercise in justifying the normalcy in a fantasy world.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

What if instead of higher BAB, a fighter just gets a "combat expertise" ability that gives him a +5 to AC?

Or a "power attack" ability that gives him a +5 to damage?

And still have an attack bonus a point or two higher than anyone else in the party, without having to take a penalty to get a trick?

 

[Rhenny]

To me flatter math isn't the primary issue, but it may need to be flattened to achieve the primary issue.

For me, the primary issue has to do with bloated AC. It is silly to have AC increase for higher level creatures if they don't increase in dex or armor value. AC should be grounded in some standard. A heavily armored creature with average dex should have AC 18-22. Higher dex with armor maybe up to 25 AC, but there should be some loose cap. Lightly armored creatures, no matter what level should be AC 12-14, etc. (not sure these are the right numbers..just eyeballing it).

Monster hit points could increase with level, damage per attack could increase with level, to hit bonus could increase with level (but probably not as much as it did in 4e).

If AC is loosely capped, there will be no need to add too much to attack bonuses, and feats/options/powers could grant more interesting attacks rather than attacks that hit more often.

If attack ability is divorced from stats, even better. Then, we would never have an issue of a high strength cleric becoming a better fighter than the fighter. Let the bonuses come from the class progression, and perhaps feat choices (giving specific races specific weapon bonus feats like Elves get +1 with bows, Halflings get +1 with slings, Dwarves get +1 with hammers or axes, etc.).

 

[Stormonu]

The flip side to Orcs being a danger to L20 PCs is that men at arms are a danger to Giants.

The feel of the world is going to change immensely. While now it is the case that (for all practical purposes) only high level characters are viable threats for high level monsters it will become the case that high level monsters will be able to be opposed by large, well organized forces of much lower level characters.

Whether this is a good or bad thing will largely be a matter of opinion.

My personal opinion is that a little of this will be good too much will be a disaster.

I find that if the rules allow a sufficiently numerical force to beat down a higher level foe is more in line with my expectations. The "unhittable", let alone unkillable advancement power creep had been getting ludicrious, IMHO.

However, I think an across-the-board denial of increase in BAB would be very bad for the game. If BAB does go the way of the dodo, I hope they give some sort of pool/tool to the fighter to split among offence, defence or damage-dealing. I don't want to go back to the shafting 3E gave the fighter.

 

[Gundark]

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.

Dragon Age allows for multiple stunts on a turn. If when rolling you only have enough for one stunt then yes there are ones that are better than others. If you could do multiple things, like only make one attack, but had enough actions to disarm, or trip, or whatever, then yes it would be fine.

Also getting rid of a BAB like modifier doesn't mean that magic items are the only way to get a better attack bonus (we don't know if getting a +1 to a attribute every few levels is there or not).

I think we'll have to agree to disagree about flatter math making magic items even more necessary.

 

[billd91]

What if instead of higher BAB, a fighter just gets a "combat expertise" ability that gives him a +5 to AC?

Or a "power attack" ability that gives him a +5 to damage?

And still have an attack bonus a point or two higher than anyone else in the party, without having to take a penalty to get a trick?

Dynamism is cooler, in many ways, than static bonuses. Gives you more options. Mutant and Masterminds, which includes a few other PA and CE type feats, makes great use of them.

 

[Sunseeker]

Dragon Age allows for multiple stunts on a turn. If when rolling you only have enough for one stunt then yes there are ones that are better than others. If you could do multiple things, like only make one attack, but had enough actions to disarm, or trip, or whatever, then yes it would be fine.

I think that would make CBMs a lot more worthwhile, and people a lot more willing to try them if they were "swift" or "minor" actions, that way you could trip, move, and attack; or disarm, trip and attack.

 

[jodyjohnson]

The flip side to Orcs being a danger to L20 PCs is that men at arms are a danger to Giants.

Factor in some sort of Morale system and it becomes more simulational.

For example, each team member lost causes Green troops to take 1d6 Psychic/Morale damage, Experienced troops take 1d4 Morale damage, Veteran troops only take minimum - 1, and Hardened Veteran troops and PCs are immune. NPCs defeated by morale damage run away or surrender.

Try taking 40 green troops against a Giant (level 10) and see what happens pretty quick.

 

[satori01]

This sounds great to me. This means that even when making a mid level character the process should be relatively quick. If Ability scores equal Saving Throw DCs and your class gives ability boosts, then not having to bother with Saving Throw charts and base to hit, or THACO is much simpler.

I want a game where as a DM, I can describe a scene, and a player can spontaneously say , (w/o Feats, or a Paragon Path Power etc, etc):

"I shoot the chandelier "

And have said action be able to mean something, rather than today were full attacks, or Interrupt/ Warlord get more attacks and boost MBA dmg builds are too effective, nay even sometimes even needed by the very bones of the system, (the math).

I want a system where I can reward creative Play, and not just a well crafted build.

I have to admit I laughed when I read some of these comments. Somebody predicted that flatter math would lead to a world where Men at Arms in large enough numbers would be a challenge for Giants, and how odd in terms of world makeup that would be.

Of course 1e was entirely this way. It was fun.

If the fear I read in a lot posts is comming from having only played 3e or 4e, do not worry. If the game is going back to that, with good design, you will have fun.