Aage said:It'd probably look something like this:
BAB, AC, Fort, Ref, Will, (MAB*): ½ character level + relevant ability modifier + class bonus
*Not sure about this one, but it makes sense to have a special attack bonus for magic.
Class bonus will then be the only difference between a fighter and a wizard, and the gap will not become greater nor smaller over time. My guess is that the best class bonuses are +5 and the worst +0, with the others inbetween.
bgaesop said:So if I'm understanding you correctly, let's say a fighter gets a +5 BAB and a wizard gets a +0. At level one the wizard would have +1 and the fighter would have +6, while at level 20 the wizard would have +10 and the fighter would have +15? Is that correct or am I way off?
I suppose that makes sense, and if each class has its own pluses to each of the categories that doesn't seem too far off from 3.x. It really makes 1st level characters quite powerful, though, which is something I like. Hooray for support for low level adventurers!
That's assuming that a real courtier is "just" a level 1-2 aristocrat in D&D 4 (or even in 3rd edition).ZombieRoboNinja said:I am kind of worried about skills.
I guess at paragon and epic levels I can't complain, but I'd think that at heroic levels, at least, it should be possible to make a character who is just bad at some things. Not "bad compared to other stuff of the same level" but just not that good, flat-out. My level 10 "clumsy barbarian" shouldn't be a better diplomat that most courtiers (level 1-2 aristocrats).
That does make a lot of sense. I hope that all rolls/bonuses are now on the same "scale", so it becomes reasonable and balanced to make skill rolls vs. will/reflex defense, and things like that.Remathilis said:[speculation]
All dice rolls are now dynamic (1d20) attack vs. a static defense.
An "attack" is 1d20 + 1/2 char level + relevant ability mod + Class Bonus + Misc Bonuses
A "defense" is 10 + 1/2 char level + relevant ability mod + Class Bonus + Misc Bonuses
"attacks" includes melee attacks, ranged attacks, skill checks, spellcasting, talents (smite), and other d20 rolls (initiative, for example)
ZombieRoboNinja said:I am kind of worried about skills.
I guess at paragon and epic levels I can't complain, but I'd think that at heroic levels, at least, it should be possible to make a character who is just bad at some things. Not "bad compared to other stuff of the same level" but just not that good, flat-out. My level 10 "clumsy barbarian" shouldn't be a better diplomat that most courtiers (level 1-2 aristocrats).

(Dungeons & Dragons)
Rulebook featuring "high magic" options, including a host of new spells.