What if we removed the half-level bonus to everything?

[Nail]

This basically turns HP into the new level-based defense.

So long as the DM only threw same level foes at the PCs, they'd never notice a difference.

Only using same-level foes is a heck of a limitation on th' DM, though. I wouldn't want to DM like that, with one-hand tied behind my back.

 

[balard]

I do not think the problem is same level foes. Just keeping in the variance of 5 they recomend you will get a nice feel. All it will do is make the higher level monsters easier and the lower levels harder... Not a big deal to me.

 

[Doctor Proctor]

The statement you quoted, Thanee, wasn't the only statement there, nor even the last one.

It's like I said in the OP; high level things are now easier to hit, but you still have to deal with their massive amounts of HP. Anything short of an army of kobolds isn't going to make a dent in Orcus, and even then it's not very likely that they'd be able to kill him.

This basically turns HP into the new level-based defense.

This still doesn't answer the question of whywe need a new level-based defense when the one we currently have works fine. Plus, you still haven't given a reason why a level 30 party should find it just as difficult to hit a level 1 Kobold as they do Orcus. What's the point? Lower level enemies should be significantly easier, and not just in terms of hit points. They should be easier to hit and easier to shrug off.

With the current rules, you could build an encounter with Orcus and 100 Kobold Dragonshields, and the party could probably handle it. The reason is that the Kobolds won't hit on anything short of a crit, and the PC's won't miss on anything except for a 1. This is the point, because they're epic heroes that are larger than life.

According to your rules though, the Kobolds would be able to easily hit the PC's and whittle their hp's down over time, whereas the PC's will actually have some difficulty in hitting them. So powers that fire off killing an enemy woudln't be very useful because the Kobolds would actually be pretty hard to hit. The party would probably end up wasting encounter and daily powers in order to get the Kobolds off their backs, and this would mean less ammunition for Orcus and would probalby lead to a TPK. Why would you want that? It makes no sense.

To give it some perspective in fantasy literature, this would be like Sauron himself coming down to smite a 12 year old and being unable to hit for 2 rounds. WTF.

 

[Rafe]

Anything I didn't consider?

Skill progression? Making the separation between a level 1 and a level 15?

My biggest issue with 3.x is that characters never advanced. Their gear did. That's just plain ridiculous and I'm glad it's finally been fixed. If I want my character to count for nothing and my gear to mean everything, I can just go play WoW.

I actually think that damage rolls should also have +1/2 level. Give an unarmoured level 1 Fighter a sword and a level 10 Fighter a sword. The level 10 shouldn't just last longer because of his hit points. Experience represents just that - experience. It should count for something. The level 10 should be hitting more often, and harder. Remove 1/2 level and you're removing a huge part of what represents progression in 4e.

For instance, give some guy off the street a knife and give a knife to an SAS guy. Now make them fight. Not only will the SAS guy hit more often, but it will also do more damage per hit to the other guy. (Actually, the normal bloke would die from a single strike from an SAS-trained soldier.) Why? He's trained and has experience. A trained and experienced carpenter can make a nicer piece of furniture than someone who tries for the first time and a trained and experienced soldier can kill people more efficiently.

I'm curious as to why you would want to remove one of the only mechanics representing progression and advancement?

 

[Asmor]

I'm curious as to why you would want to remove one of the only mechanics representing progression and advancement?

First, who said I wanted to? I merely asked a hypothetical question. Regardless of whether I think it would be a good change or not, I probably wouldn't implement it simply because such a systemic change would require too much work on my part.

That said, for the following reasons:

1. Makes things simpler. No more updating every. single. number. on your character sheet at every even level. Also, keeps numbers smaller and easier to manage.

2. It doesn't add anything, and in fact subtracts. As far as I can tell, the only thing the half-level bonus does is make it so that PCs are restricted to fighting things in an admittedly generous level-band, and make certain enemies easier or more difficult based solely on the fact that they're not the same level as the PCs.

3. Keeps things consistent. Speaking as someone who falls squarely on the "extreme gamist" side of things, one thing I absolutely hate-hate-hate-hate is that (particularly mundane) challenges scale up to PCs, so that a level 1 PC might need to make a DC 10 acrobatics check to avoid slipping on some slime, while a level 30 PC would need to make a DC 25 acrobatics check to avoid slipping on some slime (which may or may not be masquerading as "Astral-Teflon Slime" to justify the DC increase).

This point bears repeating: You claim the PCs increase in abilities, but this is simply not true. That level 1 PC needs to roll a 10 or better to stay up, and the level 30 PC needs to roll a 10 or better to stay up.

That's my biggest pet peeve with 4th edition (and I'm still a huge fanboy of 4th, so don't get me wrong). I hate the way it looks like your character is advancing, but in actuality you still need the same rolls to beat the same obstacles. Granted, removing the half-level penalty won't help, but at least then the problem wouldn't be obscured.

As far as character advancement goes, it's still there. You gain hit points as you level, meaning you can stand up to more punishment. Your damage output increases as you level, meaning you can kill foes faster. Your tactical options increase, meaning that you can outmaneuver less experienced foes. You gain more feats, which you can use to increase your abilities, including gaining training or focus in skills, which is the only way for skills to actually advance in D&D 4th edition.

The only difference is, you don't have your numbers and your opponents' numbers inflating to make you feel better.

 

[Rafe]

Yup, I understand it's hypothetical and a fairly interesting one.

2. It doesn't add anything, and in fact subtracts. As far as I can tell, the only thing the half-level bonus does is make it so that PCs are restricted to fighting things in an admittedly generous level-band, and make certain enemies easier or more difficult based solely on the fact that they're not the same level as the PCs.

Personally, I've always hated this, regardless of edition. I loved it when one of my DMs brought goblins back when we were 15th level. It's a blast to actually feel a sense of advancement in relation to a an easy-to-recognize point of reference (such as 3.x generic goblins). DMs need to take advantage of lower level creatures at higher levels. A game does indeed become silly if every encounter is scaled to the characters' levels. Then, to give another MMO reference, the game world turns into a series of "starter zones," "mid-level zones" and "high-level zones." Imagine being the unfortunate peasants stuck in the level 21-30 area of the campaign map?

3. Keeps things consistent. Speaking as someone who falls squarely on the "extreme gamist" side of things, one thing I absolutely hate-hate-hate-hate is that (particularly mundane) challenges scale up to PCs, so that a level 1 PC might need to make a DC 10 acrobatics check to avoid slipping on some slime, while a level 30 PC would need to make a DC 25 acrobatics check to avoid slipping on some slime (which may or may not be masquerading as "Astral-Teflon Slime" to justify the DC increase).

I agree with that (and laughed when I read "Astral-Teflon Slime"). The difficulties should scale somewhat, but not so perfectly. Say DC 5 is Easy for levels 1-3. DC 6 should be for levels 4-7, DC 7 for 8-11, etc.

This point bears repeating: You claim the PCs increase in abilities, but this is simply not true. That level 1 PC needs to roll a 10 or better to stay up, and the level 30 PC needs to roll a 10 or better to stay up.

Here's where you're wrong, because rolling a saving throw is the only example that anyone could give for this.

I agree with your last paragraph.

 

[77IM]

This:

As far as I can tell, the only thing the half-level bonus does is make it so that PCs are restricted to fighting things in an admittedly generous level-band, and make certain enemies easier or more difficult based solely on the fact that they're not the same level as the PCs.

I think removing 1/2 level from PC stats, and subtracting 1/2 level from monster stats, leads to a lot more monster re-use across levels. That way you don't need Legion Devil minions at 4 different level bands, for example. You just have one Legion Devil, and give him the Hit Points of a 6th level monster. For a 1st-level group, that might count as an elite or even a solo. For a 15th-level group, the guy is practically a minion. So as you level up, enemies that used to be boss monsters instead become disposable underlings. I think this could be a LOT more rewarding than the current system, in which the elite kobold you fought at 2nd level is never heard from again; at paragon tier, a fight against low-level kobolds is so trivial to be uninteresting, no matter how many of them there are. That's why, for example, the highest level orc in the MM is a minion.

There's a good thread about it here: http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-fan...40-d-d-4th-edition-no-1-2-levels-bonuses.html

-- 77IM

 

[77IM]

Here's where you're wrong, because rolling a saving throw is the only example that anyone could give for this.

No, if you consider the DC, then Asmor is correct.

+5 vs DC 15 = roll a 10 or better to succeed
+25 vs DC 35 = roll 10 or better to succeed

The math doesn't work out perfectly since a highly specialized character's skill modifier grows somewhat faster than the skill DC, but it's close enough. For both story and game reasons, succeeding on a 10 or better is the sweet spot, so skill DCs (and monster defenses) artificially scale along with the characters'.

-- 77IM

 

[Saeviomagy]

Think this through just a bit more.

....by 30th level, you shouldn't be missing level 1 monsters. You should be easily slaughtering them.


Exactly.

With the abstractness of hitpoints, you could well be missing orcus more. You're certainly not scoring telling blows on him. The problem with minions is that they are a simplification. We already know that it's not recommended to run a single high-level minion as an encounter: the fight would be really silly and swingy. This rule would, if anything, make that less of an issue: all minions regardless of comparative level would be relatively low threat.

By 30th level, under standard D&D, you're not even fighting level 1 monsters, simply because it's not possible for them to be any kind of threat, and thus there is no excitement in fighting them. With this change, you're moving away from superhero fantasy and back into a world where an army of orcs is still a threat, no matter who you are.

 

[Rafe]

I think removing 1/2 level from PC stats, and subtracting 1/2 level from monster stats, leads to a lot more monster re-use across levels. That way you don't need Legion Devil minions at 4 different level bands, for example. You just have one Legion Devil, and give him the Hit Points of a 6th level monster. For a 1st-level group, that might count as an elite or even a solo. For a 15th-level group, the guy is practically a minion.

This is true. It may be easier to tailor creatures to specific level brackets. That said, I don't find it tough to do with the 1/2 level mechanic in. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

No, if you consider the DC, then Asmor is correct.

+5 vs DC 15 = roll a 10 or better to succeed
+25 vs DC 35 = roll 10 or better to succeed

The math doesn't work out perfectly since a highly specialized character's skill modifier grows somewhat faster than the skill DC, but it's close enough.

This is true, and something I agree with you Asmor on. There needs to be a reason for the same hazard/obstacle to suddenly require a harder check. There's also this issue. If a group of level 15s save a few villagers then encounter the obstacle, is it a levels 1-3 DC or a 15ish DC? It is rather odd and, to be honest, I don't tend to use those DCs. I stick to more static DCs. I suppose that's the reason I didn't think of the above as being an instance of "10 or better."