Asmor
First Post
This is the first thing in the entire thread I've seen in which the half-level bonus actually matters. Bravo!
What if we removed the half-level bonus to everything?
- Thread starter Asmor
- Start date
This is the first thing in the entire thread I've seen in which the half-level bonus actually matters. Bravo!
Nail
First Post
As a matter of fact....
We've all seen the advertising. We all know how it works. And yet we are still tempted into buying luxury goods that are made no better than cheaper goods.
Getting a +1/2 levels means something, even though the math shows the difference to be the same.
Different tact:
At 4th level, fighting a Otyugh (soldier 7) can get a little hairy. 14th level PCs, on the other hand, would have little difficulty. If you remove th' +1/2 level bonus, would the same statement be true?
Asmor
First Post
Well, at 4th level, fighting a single level 7 monster isn't at all difficult (assuming the Otyugh isn't a solo, I'm too lazy to look it up... Even an elite level 7 would be an easy encounter for a group of level 4s).
So let's change that otyugh into a young red dragon (solo 7 soldier). While we're at it, we'll make the PCs 10th level, so we're looking at 3 levels above and 3 levels below.
The dragon would be a difficult encounter for the party of level 4s, but they should be able to handle it as long as they're not completely wasted and don't have terrible luck. It's a difficult encounter because the dragon is hard to hit, has a ton of hit points relative to their potential damage output, and does a lot more damage.
The same encounter would be much easier for 10th level PCs, because the dragon's easy to hit, has relatively few hit points compared to their damage potential, and doesn't do a whole lot of damage.
If we remove the half-level adjustments to PCs and the dragon, then most of the above still holds true. The only difference is that it's now a theoretically average challenge to hit the dragon, rather than it being easier or more difficult than normal.
The low-level party is still going to take longer to kill it, thus are going to be hit more often since the dragon's going to be alive longer, and each individual hit hurts more because they don't have as many hit points.
The 10th level party will kill the dragon faster, so it will get fewer attacks off, and each individual attack will deal less damage.
Ultimately, what matters is the percentage of resources (hit points) that the dragon can take from the PCs before it is defeated.
Let's make a formula...
Dd = Dragon's average damage per round = [Dragon's damage * hit probability]
Dh = Dragon's HP
Pd = Party's average damage per round = [Party's damage * hit probability]
Ph = Party's HP, including healing and such
So the dragon will survive for [Dh / Pd] rounds, and will deal [Dd / Ph] damage per round.
Thus, for the whole dragon fight, the PCs will lose [Dh * Dd] / [Pd * Ph] percentage of their HP resources.
Since the dragon's static, [Dh * Dd] is constant. Pd and Ph both increase as the party increases in level, thus the percentage of their resources lost is essentially an inverse square function.
In other words, as their level raises, the threat the dragon poses drops off quadratically!
If we keep the level bonus in, that's going to have the following effect: As the PCs level rise relative to the dragon, Dd will go down and Pd will go up due to the dragon hitting less often and the players hitting more often. Thus, the effect of the half-level bonus is to cause the dragon's threat to drop off quartically.
Last edited:
DrSpunj
Explorer
Asmor, you quoted Nail's post but somehow attributed it to Szatany. 
FWIW, I think the perception of "I leveled and I'm now better than I was" with respect to attack bonuses is a sacred cow to most D&D players. I think for many (most?) if that number that doesn't increase it doesn't feel like D&D to them, even if their damage & powers get bigger & better, their abilities go up, they find/make better magic stuff, etc. I think 4e changed and slayed a number of sacred cows and this could have been one of them. IMO, dropping the +1/2 level bonus everywhere would only slightly change the feel of the game overall but doing so now would probably stand out to most as a major change. If it was an original part of 4e I don't think it would have seemed like that big of deal. Maybe with 5e?
FWIW, I think the perception of "I leveled and I'm now better than I was" with respect to attack bonuses is a sacred cow to most D&D players. I think for many (most?) if that number that doesn't increase it doesn't feel like D&D to them, even if their damage & powers get bigger & better, their abilities go up, they find/make better magic stuff, etc. I think 4e changed and slayed a number of sacred cows and this could have been one of them. IMO, dropping the +1/2 level bonus everywhere would only slightly change the feel of the game overall but doing so now would probably stand out to most as a major change. If it was an original part of 4e I don't think it would have seemed like that big of deal. Maybe with 5e?
DracoSuave
First Post
Character advancement isn't a sacred cow of D&D. It's a sacred cow of -roleplaying games-. Most games have the assumption that somehow, your abilities will improve over extended periods of time. The ones that don't are either designed for one-shot gaming (Ninja Burger), horror-style and therefore long term character advancement is prevented by character death (Call of Cthluhu, altho even that game had skill increases), or are postmodern things that aren't really appropriate to kick down the door get the treasure style gaming.
The increase in skills/attacks etc. is so that there's always a sense of 'I am better than before' which simply increasing hps doesn't cover.
With the level ups as is, that wall you once had trouble with is now easy, that kobold that gave you a hard time is now easy, that villiage chief that didn't listen to you now gives you respect. Your not just doing the same thing over and over agian, you're up against bigger and badder things, and the 1/2 level is part of that sense of escalation.
You look at that mountain that you could never climb at first level, and you go 'Alright, this should be no challenge now.'
You used to have trouble climbing hills, now you're climbing Mount Olympus.
The increase in skills/attacks etc. is so that there's always a sense of 'I am better than before' which simply increasing hps doesn't cover.
With the level ups as is, that wall you once had trouble with is now easy, that kobold that gave you a hard time is now easy, that villiage chief that didn't listen to you now gives you respect. Your not just doing the same thing over and over agian, you're up against bigger and badder things, and the 1/2 level is part of that sense of escalation.
You look at that mountain that you could never climb at first level, and you go 'Alright, this should be no challenge now.'
You used to have trouble climbing hills, now you're climbing Mount Olympus.
DracoSuave
First Post
That's sort of the point of it tho. It's not supposed to be a linear transition... a level 30 character is not 30 times as good as a level 1 character, but a lot more so. He's 30 times as good at level 11 or so, and that's what the tiers represent. Level 11 is supposed to be OMGWTF Powerful compared to level 1, and level 21 is supposed to be OMGWTF powerful compared to level 11. Remove the 1/2 level adjustment and you bring down 'epic' characters down to earth, and make them no more than padded sumos for the slaughter.
Asmor
First Post
Asmor, you quoted Nail's post but somehow attributed it to Szatany.
That's weird, I just quoted him... I didn't even do a multiquote for that post. No clue how that happened...
Regarding character advancement: It's still there. You still gain new powers, gain new feats, increase your ability scores, and get new equipment.
Why is this option an interesting variant? Encounter design.
Under the current rules, you can't include kobolds and drow in the same encounter. Either the kobolds will be too easy to matter, or the drow (even a single drow) will be too tough to take down.
This is primarily due to attacks/defense numbers, article of evidence #1 being the fact that minions, elites, and solos have roughly appropriate attack/defense for their level but vary widely in their damage/hit points. In fact, the 4e solution to my dilemma would be to feature either a 6th level elite drow diplomat with the kobolds, or to have a standard drow encounter involving 14th level kobold minions. To me, this mutability of monster level seems at least as artificial as the idea of not gaining attack/defense as you level up.
If you subtract 1/2 level from all monsters, the drow are still noticeably better than the kobolds -- but not so much that they can't be together in an upper-heroic-tier encounter (say, 8th or 9th level). It's sort of like the DMG rules for leveling monsters up and down, but pre-leveling them all down to zero.
To me, this considerably increases the options for encounter/adventure building.
-- 77IM
Under the current rules, you can't include kobolds and drow in the same encounter. Either the kobolds will be too easy to matter, or the drow (even a single drow) will be too tough to take down.
This is primarily due to attacks/defense numbers, article of evidence #1 being the fact that minions, elites, and solos have roughly appropriate attack/defense for their level but vary widely in their damage/hit points. In fact, the 4e solution to my dilemma would be to feature either a 6th level elite drow diplomat with the kobolds, or to have a standard drow encounter involving 14th level kobold minions. To me, this mutability of monster level seems at least as artificial as the idea of not gaining attack/defense as you level up.
If you subtract 1/2 level from all monsters, the drow are still noticeably better than the kobolds -- but not so much that they can't be together in an upper-heroic-tier encounter (say, 8th or 9th level). It's sort of like the DMG rules for leveling monsters up and down, but pre-leveling them all down to zero.
To me, this considerably increases the options for encounter/adventure building.
-- 77IM
Excuse me for butting in, but if we're already having a feast of beef, why not add one more to the pile? I think sacred cows have little weight in this given how many were slaughtered already in making 4E what it is.
Personally I think removing the 1/2 level bonus to PCs, and penalizing monsters by 1/2 level would make this game much more palatable to me. But I'm a confirmed 4E hater, so I'll just butt out again here...
DrSpunj
Explorer
That was my point actually (though it certainly could have been clearer, I admit). Adding one more cow to the 4e feast I don't think would have registered to most anyone in June with all the other...ah...food on the table. But trying to retrofit such a change now seems like a major big deal to many if not most who are familiar with any previous edition of D&D.
Thanks
