What if bonuses never stacked?

[keterys]

The non-stacking +1 all time and then the non-stacking +2 while charging was your own example.

Yep, now take two characters - they both have the charge feat, and the first has the +1 feat all the time... and the second doesn't.

And they both charge.

And they both add +2. Even though that second guy can also burn a feat for Linguist if he really wants. (Or has more hit points, or a feat that gives him more mobility so he's more likely to get his charge off every turn, etc)

I don't see how this is different from just a stacking +1 all time with another stacking +1 while charging.

Hence, why we're in disagreement Which is fine. I'm content thinking you're wrong, and you can think I'm wrong.

Also, Nimble Blade, Deft Blade, and Light Blade Expertise - the 3 feats I cited - are all used on every attack the thief makes. There's no choice, there's no tactic that emphasizes one or another. It just all stacks.

Similarly, he'll stack Light Blade Expertise, Weapon Focus, and Surprising Charge.

 

[catastrophic]

I agree with this, but do not think it will work well with 4E. It is too late. But I would like to see D&D get off the bonus treadmill at some point. It is one thing I do not like about D&D and never really have.

I honestly would like it to get away from the level treadmill, in the bargain. That's unlikely, but it feels as if there's a lot of makework in level-based systems, and bonus stacking is the kind of negative side effect that results.

 

[babinro]

I wish stacking were simplified though still existed.

All items provide item bonuses.
All feats provide feat bonuses.
All powers provide power bonuses.
All races provide racial bonuses.
Classes provide class bonuses where applicable on specific builds.

By making each area of the game its own specific bonus type, the confusion goes away. You don't have to re-read feats to figure out what it is or isn't compatible. Likewise with magical items. From a balance standpoint, the devs have an easier time keeping the game in line.

As mentioned though, changes like the above are too late to implement into the game mechanics without headaches and potential conflicts with the math. Just one of the many things I hope is improved when future editions come to life.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I honestly would like it to get away from the level treadmill, in the bargain. That's unlikely, but it feels as if there's a lot of makework in level-based systems, and bonus stacking is the kind of negative side effect that results.

Yeah, I really don't say this often, but are you sure you want to be playing D&D? I don't mean than in the snide 'go play some other game' kind of way. I just mean if you stop having levels and create a point-buy system (or something else, though I don't really know much of another alternative if there is still some degree of power curve) then what's left? Why bother to call it D&D? Right now it still bears a pretty significant resemblance to the game of yore. While there's no reason to automatically favor that in terms of a game to play, there is also no reason to bother to continue the fiction that you're making the same game when nothing is left of the original. We can all go play one of a list of other FRPGs, lol.

 

[catastrophic]

I'm not talking about a points buy system. I'm talking about races and classes and dragons and dungeons and all that stuff. I'm just saying, level is a pretty dubious concept to build into mechanics in the way dnd tends to do- I know a lot of people like it, but there are a lot of benefits to dropping it, as Mike Mearls discovered in his recent colum.

What i'm talking about is using level as a framing mechanism, and recognising that the red queen fallacy doesn't lead to good content. I know people like adding those numbers up, but it's not that un-dnd-like to realise how illusory those options are.

If anything, taking out level would emphasise the other qualities, including the other uses of level- level as tier, level as narrtive device, level to define stakes. Take level out of combat stats, put it around the combat as the stakes of the battle.

Now the issue there is progress- how do you feel progress without leveling up your combat stats? Well, it forces real progress. Progress in the story, progress in what is being fought for, the kind of progress that, for instance, has been clearly missing from the epic tier.

I know this is extreme, but it would still be D&D.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'm not talking about a points buy system. I'm talking about races and classes and dragons and dungeons and all that stuff. I'm just saying, level is a pretty dubious concept to build into mechanics in the way dnd tends to do- I know a lot of people like it, but there are a lot of benefits to dropping it, as Mike Mearls discovered in his recent colum.

What i'm talking about is using level as a framing mechanism, and recognising that the red queen fallacy doesn't lead to good content. I know people like adding those numbers up, but it's not that un-dnd-like to realise how illusory those options are.

If anything, taking out level would emphasise the other qualities, including the other uses of level- level as tier, level as narrtive device, level to define stakes. Take level out of combat stats, put it around the combat as the stakes of the battle.

Now the issue there is progress- how do you feel progress without leveling up your combat stats? Well, it forces real progress. Progress in the story, progress in what is being fought for, the kind of progress that, for instance, has been clearly missing from the epic tier.

I know this is extreme, but it would still be D&D.

I don't think it would feel like D&D at all. It would also just beg the question of "why don't we just go kill Orcus?" given that there is no longer a power curve in the game AT ALL you no longer have a way to measure what you can go up against. There are in fact no longer a hierarchy of greater difficulty at all.

Yes, you can have 'progress in the story', but we ALREADY DO have that. Having played a lot of games, and numerous games which lacked any real notion of advancement (CoC and Traveller spring instantly to mind, but the original Gamma World would also fall into this category) the main issue with campaigns in all of these games is that there is very little organic to the game driving anything forward.

This is fine for a game like CoC where the characters basically exist to inevitably die horribly and the drama is only in HOW. Gamma World was a kind of 'beer & pretzels' situation (Boot Hill pretty well fell in here too, as does Paranoia) where characters were pretty much disposable and the game revolved around your gear.

Traveller OTOH really illustrates the issue. It was always rather hard to drive a campaign forward in that game. You could present various plots and tie them to PC background and you could appeal to simple greed, but in the long run the GM would pretty well inevitably find that the players were simply finding less and less reason to bother when they logically could just sell off their 800 ton Corsaire for 100 million credits and go kick back on some nice tropical planet somewhere.

Long term campaigns really NEED some power curve to help pull them forward. It is by far the most reliable method of doing that and IME D&D has always excelled at being a system suitable to long-term campaigns and overarching stories.

You CAN significantly change the way leveling works. For instance you could remove half-level bonuses. 4e would actually work OK without them, but you STILL need levels to allow for increased capabilities. The PCs at a minimum are going to need to have increasing damage output and other improved capabilities. This can all come from feat and power acquisition (and/or items), but it has to come from SOMEWHERE, and hit points certainly need to increase if you intend to have durable characters facing greater and greater challenges.

Which is why I say you need some kind of progression system, and for D&D levels actually make good sense. You could use point system or CoC-style 'use it and improve it' but you also need to have a way to increase toughness and measure what you need to be taking on.

 

[delericho]

I'm just saying, level is a pretty dubious concept to build into mechanics in the way dnd tends to do- I know a lot of people like it, but there are a lot of benefits to dropping it, as Mike Mearls discovered in his recent colum.

Level may be the single most important thing that brought about D&D's success. By building in a treadmill of advancement, the game encouraged people to keep playing, to keep accumulating those XP, to keep going. Even if it's just a treadmill, and advancement is almost entirely illusory, people still want to keep gaining those levels...

That's not to say level couldn't be removed, but they should tread very carefully before considering such a radical step. In many ways, going classless would be a less radical step.

Now the issue there is progress- how do you feel progress without leveling up your combat stats? Well, it forces real progress. Progress in the story, progress in what is being fought for, the kind of progress that, for instance, has been clearly missing from the epic tier.

I think that's the issue. Whether illusory or not, levels provide a very obvious motivation for playing the game - got to get those XP, got to get to the next level. Removing it forces people to identify 'real' goals for their characters... but people don't like having to 'work'. Remove the obvious motivation, and you may well find that for a lot of people you've removed the only motivation.

 

[MortalPlague]

Non-stacking bonuses is a very interesting idea. Certainly it wouldn't work with the current edition, but for the future, I think the design could be quite appealing.

For starters, designers wouldn't have to worry when designing a new power or feat, whether it would combine with something else to be ungodly. Take leader buffs, for instance. Instead of having leaders grant a +2 to hit, they'd grant a +6 to hit. Assuming the +6 would be better than the strength bonus of the fighter (likely), the bonus is useful. Encounter powers would give something higher, perhaps a +8 or +10. And dailies, still higher. The designer doesn't have to worry about a single power's bonus stacking up with a ton of other bonuses to break the game, since it's either the power's bonus or some other bonus that takes effect.

Feats would be another beneficiary here. They could be designed in trees, so that feats unlock other, more potent feats that replace them. For instance, Weapon Focus would grant a +6 to damage (this doesn't stack with the warrior's strength, remember?). This could unlock Greater Weapon Focus (with a level requirement, maybe), which grants a +10 to damage. Then Deadly Weapon Focus grants +15 to damage. Each feat replaces the one before it. Furthermore, there could be feats which increase ability scores directly. So while one fighter takes the 'weapon focus' tree, another could take the 'strength training' tree to boost his natural brawn. Then you'd have the practiced swordsman and the brawny brute, defined by a difference in feats.

I'm not sure this system would be necessarily better than the one we have now, but it would certainly be simpler. It's an idea that's fun to explore, though.

 

[catastrophic]

I don't think it would feel like D&D at all. It would also just beg the question of "why don't we just go kill Orcus?" given that there is no longer a power curve in the game AT ALL you no longer have a way to measure what you can go up against. There are in fact no longer a hierarchy of greater difficulty at all.

That's not correct at all. As I said, the stakes would still differ by level. So your level would define wether you were fighting orcus to save the world, or fighting some goblins to save a village.

The level system would define the kind of threats you would face, but the gm would be free to draw the combat stats for those threats from ALL the monster resources which would normally be mostly innaccessable by level without a bunch of revision.

With a combat systme free of level, you can take whatever monster build you want, and use it in the part of your game where it makes the most sense.

That winged rampaging giant spellcaster might be orcus, or it might be a gargoyle warlock villain who they take down in heroic tier. The combat stats are the same, but the GM gains the ability to use any given monster at the perfect time in their campaign.

People might say "What? Orcus should be a special fight!" Well frankly, every fight should be a special fight, and every monster should be memorable and well made.

And again, this gives GMs that option- if they want to sav ethe super-solos for later levels, they can. If they want later levels to be defined more by say, hordes of low-power foes built as swarms, they can do that too. It's up to the gm to decide the kind of threats and the character of the threats the pcs fac ein various plotlines.

I think this would result in better design for the powers and monsters that games actually use. Rather than stretching those constructs across 30 levels, the game could focus the best possible design, take more risks and make less generic 'filler' monsters, and also offer suplements with new monsters that would be useable at any level.

Yes, you can have 'progress in the story', but we ALREADY DO have that.

don't think most games do that that well, especially as levels climb. Focusing level on the idea of the impact the pcs are having on the world would enhance that experience.

Long term campaigns really NEED some power curve to help pull them forward. It is by far the most reliable method of doing that and IME D&D has always excelled at being a system suitable to long-term campaigns and overarching stories.

I don't have a problem with a power curve, in fact what i'm talking about is emphasising that. All I want to do is remove level from combat mechanics.

Level may be the single most important thing that brought about D&D's success. By building in a treadmill of advancement, the game encouraged people to keep playing, to keep accumulating those XP, to keep going. Even if it's just a treadmill, and advancement is almost entirely illusory, people still want to keep gaining those levels...

I agree that that is a serious draw, but I feel as if it's not the kind of thing that will keep people coming back to a tabletop RPG in this day and age, with the alternatives they have.

There are things unique to rpgs, like colaberative story, and a custom-made sort of entertainment, which I think could be enhanced by moving away from levels. Currently, it's assumed that levels bolster them; I feel that removing levels could actually serve those other goals better.

Removing it forces people to identify 'real' goals for their characters... but people don't like having to 'work'. Remove the obvious motivation, and you may well find that for a lot of people you've removed the only motivation.

Frankly, when I think of what keeps a game going, I think 'leveling up' is hugely overtrated.

It's often down to things like 'manage to get a routine going without too many scheduling problems' and 'does this group of semi-strangers hit it off/does this group of friends prove compatable in this context'.

Keeping a game going is pretty hard- and I think it's presumptuous to assume that leveling helps that much when well, there are plenty of level-based D&D games that fail, regardless of how much leveling is going on.

 

[delericho]

People might say "What? Orcus should be a special fight!" Well frankly, every fight should be a special fight,

Actually, I don't agree with this, and I think WotC's failure to grasp that not every fight should be a big set-piece is one of the reasons for the combat grind that is such a problem in 4e.

The thing is, not every fight should be like that. Sometimes, they're just a change of pace. Sometimes, they're just there to inject some visceral excitement into proceedings. Sometimes, they're there to set the scene. Sometimes, they're there because there should be an obstacle for the PCs there, but you don't want to spend a lot of time over it. Sometimes, they're there to advance the plot - the PCs need to get clues from the villain's henchman, but that means fighting him. And so on.

Now some of these can be handled with minion fights, no question. But that's not always what you want. If you're wanting to break up a long 'investogation' adventure, you probably want a decent-length fight, and a decent-level challenge... but probably don't want to dedicate the full 40 minutes for a "regular" 4e combat to it.

I think that's where 4e falls a bit short - there are minions, and that's good, and there are regular opponents, and that's also good... but there needs to be something in between, some sort of "super-minion" or something. Thus allowing you to have a 5-minute encounter without just throwing minions at the PCs.

A really good example of this is actually the first combat in the 4e "Tomb of Horrors". The purpose of this fight is to set the scene, and let the PCs know that something isn't quite right in the area. It's actually a really neat scene.

Except that when I ran it, it took 2.5 hours out of a 3 hour session. The PCs missed with most of their encounters and dailies, which meant they had to whittle the opponents down with at-wills... which was really painful. And that killed that adventure stone dead, and with it any chance that I would ever run 4e again.

But a minion-fight wouldn't have done here, either. If the bad guys fall too fast, it fails to set the scene, because the players could just shrug and move on. They needed some staying power. As I said, a middle ground was needed.

and every monster should be memorable and well made.

But I do agree with this.