What's wrong with scaling (and levels, bonuses, advancement, etc)?

[mmadsen]

There is little in-between, little integration or dialectical synthesis.

It still amazes me how any complaint or discussion of what another game does well turns into a partisan battle. "Oh, XYZ isn't realistic? Then why don't you go play Phoenix Command and spend twelve hours working out each attack!?"

This meme is the idea that D&D would be better off without optimization of any kind, even without leveling, scaling, advancement, or +3 swords of kewlness.

I think you're conflating scaling and optimization. The old-school game had plenty of power-growth from level to level, but there was no optimization to be done; you had few, if any, choices.

This is, of course, rather subjective, but I think we can say with some degree of confidence that races, classes, hit points, armor class, fireballs, beholders, and vorpal swords feel like D&D. And yes, levels, advancements, bonused magic items, and character optimization also feel like D&D (to me!). In other words, if we have to choose between "what makes sense/is the cutting edge of game design" and "what feels like D&D" I think we have to go with the latter.

I'm not nearly as attached to old mechanics; I disliked many of them as a kid playing 1E. To me, the feel of D&D is the feel of exploring the Caves of Chaos -- which, I now realize, was not defined by the D&D rules, but by the scenario as written combined with all the out-of-the-box thinking of the players and DM.

(An example of where the designers of 4E seemed to lose sight of this is with the whole power system; don't get me wrong, I like powers and power sources taken on their own, as an RPG rules sub-system; but for D&D? Something was lost, namely the "feeling-difference" between classes, the idiosyncratic spell lists, and perhaps most of all, the in-built encouragement to improvise actions).

The problem with 4E's powers, for me, is that they're dissociated from the simulated game world. (If you don't have a problem with that, enjoy the game.) I want a game that puts the players in the characters' shoes as much as possible, and even a good boardgame is a different kind of game.

 

[Dausuul]

I don't think I've seen anyone arguing that D&D characters should not grow more powerful as they advance. What I have seen, and agree with, is RangerWickett's point above; if all you're going to do is crank up the numbers, why bother?

I feel that D&D has a tendency to use bigger numbers as a crutch--a way to tell players, "Hey! Look how much more awesome you are now!" without actually coming up with awesome new things to give them. When you wield that +5 vorpal fullblade against an ancient dragon, there should be a palpable difference from wielding your rusty shortsword against a bugbear.

Holy avengers are excellent. +5 swords are lame.

 

[Grydan]

The only difference is that it's no longer +5. It's still vorpal, though, and still a 30th-level rare weapon.

While [MENTION=56189]Kzach[/MENTION] and I don't see eye to eye on everything, here's an area where we do.

While I do like scaling math, I don't want it to be part of the magic system.

If I could get WotC to kill one sacred cow for me, +n weapons and their ilk would be one tasty unholy hamburger.

There's nothing magical about math (for me, anyway). There's no poetry in plus one. No sense of legend in +2.

Tell someone who you're teaching the game to that for saving the princess they got a +1 magic sword, and they'll stare at you blankly and ask what's so magical about it. Tell them they got a sword made out of fire and their eyes will light up.

Chop the numbers off the magic items and put them on the characters where they belong, I say.

As Kzach says, you can still put levels on items, or (my preference) degrees of rarity.

 

[Dice4Hire]

While [MENTION=56189]Kzach[/MENTION] and I don't see eye to eye on everything, here's an area where we do.

While I do like scaling math, I don't want it to be part of the magic system.

If I could get WotC to kill one sacred cow for me, +n weapons and their ilk would be one tasty unholy hamburger.

There's nothing magical about math (for me, anyway). There's no poetry in plus one. No sense of legend in +2.

Tell someone who you're teaching the game to that for saving the princess they got a +1 magic sword, and they'll stare at you blankly and ask what's so magical about it. Tell them they got a sword made out of fire and their eyes will light up.

Chop the numbers off the magic items and put them on the characters where they belong, I say.

As Kzach says, you can still put levels on items, or (my preference) degrees of rarity.

To me, the +x to hit is a problem with magical weapons. However, a +x to damage would suit me just fine.

and even dd on a bit more fire damage with a flaming sword, or holy with a holy avenger.

Or some effects. The +x to hit is really where my problems lie, I have come to realize.

 

[Mercurius]

SNIP

OK, since you put it that way, I see the error of my ways--I 100% agree with you and have been irked by much of the same thing. I suppose, as [MENTION=1645]mmadsen[/MENTION] pointed out, I was conflating scaling, optimization, and leveling up.

Is it just me, or is 4E particularly prone to over-scaling? The semi-mythical page 42 seems to exemplify this.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I understand some people dislike +X weapons and armor, or that it's not magical to them anymore. However, when I was new, if I got a +1 shortsword, I was excited. Not just because it was +1 to attack and damage, but because this sword was magical. I knew it had a history, a past. Some magician made this sword for his warrior buddy, and they went and killed many an orc with it. There's something magical about getting a weapon like that when you're new to the game, even if it's pretty vanilla mechanics-wise.

I'm not opposed to getting rid of the swords in the math; making +X weapons and armor optional but not the default is also okay with me. However, I've seen new players react the same way many times, and it's often the same reaction: wonder. It'd be just as awe-inducing to say it's made of fire because, really, they're focused on "I have my first magic item! What can it do? Who used to own it? What's it's history?"

I know that'll vary from group to group, and I know that for veteran players +X is vanilla. But it's always been a magical moment for any new character I've seen. I do support yanking it from the math, though. If you leave them in, let them be magical. Let them skew the math a little. That's easily adjustable by the GM if he feels it's really necessary, and it gives the player and edge with his +1 shortsword by 5% if the GM wants to let it slide.

Anyways, just my thoughts on it. I'm not as down on +X weapons as some are. I do support making inherent bonuses the default. I'm okay with +X weapons being optional. There's no real reason not to include them as optional, really, especially if they're not the default.

 

[Dausuul]

Is it just me, or is 4E particularly prone to over-scaling? The semi-mythical page 42 seems to exemplify this.

It's not just you.

 

[Dragonblade]

My ideal system would really be to have all magical items rare but powerful. Providing all sorts of cool properties and powers, but little in the way of numeric bonuses.

That way you could have a first level PC find a legendary sword with a suite of mysterious powers but it doesn't break the math of the game.

The simplest way to do this and still work with the existing math of Pathfinder or 4e, is to give all PCs inherent bonuses at the levels they would be expected to have magic items of a certain plus. But these inherent bonuses don't stack with magic item enhancement bonuses. Then any DM is free to give or not give out magic items and it won't break anything in the game.

Or you can remove default assumptions of +x magic items at Z PC level from the math of the game altogether. So there are no more +1 to +6 swords or armors and monster bonuses and defenses will be dropped accordingly. Instead magic items just provide powers.

And maybe in some cases a +1 if you really need a bonus to reflect that an item is better. But nothing beyond a +1 and maybe +2 for artifacts or as a conditional bonus. So a sword of undead slaying is +1 in general but +2 vs. undead and has some other nifty abilities to go along with it. Like once per encounter it generate a turn effect as a cleric of the wielder's level. Or grants its wielder the cleave feat but only when the opponents are undead.

 

[Stormonu]

+X weapons lost their magic when DR X/magic replaced the "need +X weapon to hit". I'm on the fence about that being a good or bad thing - as a DM, sometimes "invincible" monster make characters come up with creative solutions, but as a player it's annoying and disheartening to run across things you have no hope of hurting - especially if the DM purposely ensures you don't have the right tools to face such a monster.

Likewise, as RangerWickett pointed out, the revolving treadmill of bigger numbers to beat a foes bigger number beggars the question "Why bother?". I now realize that AD&D 1 & 2 AC's didn't need to scale because hit points did so.

In older games, your higher level character may be hitting the troll more often, but he's got more hit points you have to get through than the orc with the same AC (Likewise, your character has enough hit points now to survive the troll's attacks, without having to have an AC through the roof).

Increasing a monster's AC AND it's hit points is just silly, especially if your doing it to counter the PC's increase in attack value AND damage output.

 

[S'mon]

Hmm, traditionally I always liked the '+' weapons in D&D as a simple way to denote magic power scaling, but with 4e I've gone over to the Inherent bonuses; the problem seems to be the assumed/required progression due to monster defense scaling. I'm not hugely opposed to monster defense scaling; it's this 'burden on the DM to hand out the right candy' issue that's the problem. I also like how Inherent bonuses keep unarmed & mundane weapon attacks effective, which suits eg swords & sorcery settings.

Maybe magic bonus granting weapons & armour could be much rarer, limited to +1 to +3 (as in BX D&D), and not factored into the assumed progression? I suspect though that this would just become "+1 per tier" and end up factored in too though, no matter how rare magic weapons were, Epic level PCs would still inevitably have acquired some.

I kinda like that the Inherent bonuses kick in a bit slower than PCs would typically acquire similar '+' weapons & especially armour; that plus sticking with DMG2 no-crit-bonus Inherent bonuses can keep magic weapons & armour useful when acquired.