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

[Kaodi]

I wonder if you could replace the math with something simpler (in some ways). For instance, if you used a system of Vitality Points, Wound Points, and Damage Resistance. A higher level monster or character will do more automatic wound damage to lower level opponents, and will take less damage of all kinds from those opponents. Magical weapons and armour might just change your effective levels for attacking and defending respectively. The non-magical protection of armour would affect likelihood to be hit and resistance to vitality but not wound damage. Or something like that.

 

[SpydersWebbing]

I'm against most ascending math, except for HP. HP actually represents the increasing luck, toughness, and bad-assness of the players, and I don't think we really need to represent that through anything but that. Remove the half level bonuses and magic item bonuses to attack and defenses, and that should be more than good enough.

 

[Gort]

Yeah, I could see defenses and attack bonuses staying more-or-less the same throughout the game, but damage and hitpoints (which I'd like to be renamed to "defense points") scaling up.

So your level 30 guy can still take on hordes of orcs because it'll take 'em a while to get through his 250 defense points, but a thousand orcs will eventually tire him out and defeat him.

My reason for wanting them renamed from HP to DP is that it takes into account the different types of healing available to characters. DP represent a sort of mix of fatigue, balance and ability to defend oneself. However, someone who can't defend themselves has 0 DP and can be killed at a whim by any reasonable threat. DP can be restored by magic making you less tired, or by a warlord yelling at you and inspiring you to fight on despite the pain and fatigue.

 

[SpydersWebbing]

Yeah, I could see defenses and attack bonuses staying more-or-less the same throughout the game, but damage and hitpoints (which I'd like to be renamed to "defense points") scaling up.

So your level 30 guy can still take on hordes of orcs because it'll take 'em a while to get through his 250 defense points, but a thousand orcs will eventually tire him out and defeat him.

My reason for wanting them renamed from HP to DP is that it takes into account the different types of healing available to characters. DP represent a sort of mix of fatigue, balance and ability to defend oneself. However, someone who can't defend themselves has 0 DP and can be killed at a whim by any reasonable threat. DP can be restored by magic making you less tired, or by a warlord yelling at you and inspiring you to fight on despite the pain and fatigue.

Good God, that made sense. It makes so much sense that I'm in shock. Good job!

EDIT: That wasn't sarcasm. I really was that impressed... I didn't want it to come off as snarky.

 

[FireLance]

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

4E is prone to over-scaling in much the same way that a bicycle with training wheels is prone to being over-balanced. If you want don't want the training wheels (because removing them improves the biking experience for you) you'll have to take them off yourself. If you want greater variation in the PCs' chance of successes when it comes to hitting monsters and making skill checks, vary the levels of the monsters and the challenges they encounter more.

As for the oft-maligned +X magic weapons, Dice4Hire pretty much nailed the issue. If magic weapons are going to provide a widely-varying bonus to hit (say, from +0 to +5 or +6), then "the math" is going to have to take this variation into account. As far as I can see, there are a few ways to deal with this:

1. Significantly narrow the band of potential attack bonuses from magic weapons. Maybe a generic magic weapon gives a +1, and an artifact-level magic item gives a +2.

2. The inherent bonus method of building the assumed increase to attack bonuses from magic weapons into the game's math, then providing an alternate approach that would attribute the required bonuses to the character without using magic items.

These two approaches effectively sidestep the issue by minimizing the magic weapon's effect on the PC's chance of hitting a monster.

A third approach works by addressing monster selection, in a way similar to the "+X to hit" rules of earlier editions. Suppose monsters had a value that indicated their level of magical protection, ranging from +0 (for normal monsters such as humanoids and giants) to +5 or +6 (for highly magical creatures such as high-level devils and demons). This bonus would be factored into their AC and other defences.

Then, when a DM is picking monsters for a game, he can ignore monsters with a protection level higher than the magic weapons that the PCs have. If the PCs only have +1 magic weapons, for example, he can ignore monsters that have a +2 or higher protection level.

Actually, come to think of it, he could use monsters with a +2 or higher protection level, but he would have to use lower-level ones. Assuming a scaling system similar to 4E, a party that can take on a 10th-level +1 monster should also be able to take on a 9th level +2 monster (since their defenses would be approximately the same).

In fact, you can probably generalize it further, by giving monsters an Effective Level (MEL) equal to their actual level plus their magic defense level, and smilarly giving PCs an Effective Level (PCEL) equal to their actual level plus the attack bonus from their magic weapons.

Even better, by working backwards, you can even apply this right now to 4E: Divide the PC's level by 5 (round down), and reduce his effective level for every point that the bonus for his magic weapon is below this number. Lower the levels of the monsters he encounters accordingly. So, a 16th level PC that only has a +1 magic weapon should be treated like a 14th level PC for the purpose of which monsters are considered suitable challenges.

I think it just might work.

 

[MichaelSomething]

So the formula basically boils down to...

PCs are assumed to have a magic item bonus (now called variable Y) where Y equals X/5 (round down) at level X.
If a PC's magic item is less then Y, reduce monster levels by Q where Q equals Y minus the PC's current magic item bonus.

 

[Plane Sailing]

This is already well represented by 4e through powers and non-bonus granting feats. What you can do at 30th-level is far and away more powerful than what you can do at 1st-level. So that 1st-level goblin is still pretty much irrelevant to you since you have so many and much more powerful options at your disposal to deal with it. Having said that, it adds a sense of realism because even though the 1st-level goblin can be easily dealt with, it's still a viable threat when it has a sword at your throat.

I don't quite follow that last sentence. You're not saying that 4e gives that 1st level goblin threat are you? I though one of the problems with 4e threat scaling is that the 4e goblin can't even touch the high level PC.

Could you clarify what you meant there for me?

Thanks

 

[SSquirrel]

Or turn on inherent bonuses, hand out whatever items you want and if they're at level it won't change anything. If they don't have a magic necklace tho, their defenses won't suffer.

 

[Ultimatecalibur]

As for the oft-maligned +X magic weapons, Dice4Hire pretty much nailed the issue.

I don't think he did. In 4e the effect of bonuses on rolls to hit are often invisible while the effect of bonuses on damage rolls are. If you need a to roll an 11 to hit something at level one, by the time you get a +n[/n] weapon enemy defenses have increased so that you still need to roll an 11 to hit. On the other hand the effect of bonuses on damage rolls is highly visible: a +1 damage bonus noticeably increases damage dealt because the damage total a character inflicts has increased.

If magic weapons are going to provide a widely-varying bonus to hit (say, from +0 to +5 or +6), then "the math" is going to have to take this variation into account.

While the math should be able to take it into account, what is important is when, where, how often and in what situations that the math these bonuses into account. If the math always takes those bonuses into account when determining the base hp, hit bonuses and defenses of monsters then you get a narrow linear scale that is effectively identical to one where those bonuses were never given or taken into account.

As far as I can see, there are a few ways to deal with this:

1. Significantly narrow the band of potential attack bonuses from magic weapons. Maybe a generic magic weapon gives a +1, and an artifact-level magic item gives a +2.

If the math still takes into account that level 1-10 characters will have +0 equipment, 11-20 +1 and 21 30 +2, this is only changing scale and the unit of measurement and not really influencing the underlining math. This is like saying 212°F, 100°C, and 373.15°K are different temperatures.

2. The inherent bonus method of building the assumed increase to attack bonuses from magic weapons into the game's math, then providing an alternate approach that would attribute the required bonuses to the character without using magic items.

This doesn't really do what you think it does. I doesn't change the math and just hides where the bonuses are coming from. I even argued with you about this sort of thing back in March in a topic I made about Wealth by Level guidelines.

These two approaches effectively sidestep the issue by minimizing the magic weapon's effect on the PC's chance of hitting a monster.

All they do is minimize the visibility of magical equipments effect on their ability to hit.

A third approach works by addressing monster selection, in a way similar to the "+X to hit" rules of earlier editions. Suppose monsters had a value that indicated their level of magical protection, ranging from +0 (for normal monsters such as humanoids and giants) to +5 or +6 (for highly magical creatures such as high-level devils and demons). This bonus would be factored into their AC and other defences.

Then, when a DM is picking monsters for a game, he can ignore monsters with a protection level higher than the magic weapons that the PCs have. If the PCs only have +1 magic weapons, for example, he can ignore monsters that have a +2 or higher protection level.

Actually, come to think of it, he could use monsters with a +2 or higher protection level, but he would have to use lower-level ones. Assuming a scaling system similar to 4E, a party that can take on a 10th-level +1 monster should also be able to take on a 9th level +2 monster (since their defenses would be approximately the same).

You could also use those enemies with higher "protection levels" and expect harder fights that take more out of the characters and in the end give them more xp.

What you have proposed here is an idea I have been putting forward since March.

In fact, you can probably generalize it further, by giving monsters an Effective Level (MEL) equal to their actual level plus their magic defense level, and smilarly giving PCs an Effective Level (PCEL) equal to their actual level plus the attack bonus from their magic weapons.

Even better, by working backwards, you can even apply this right now to 4E: Divide the PC's level by 5 (round down), and reduce his effective level for every point that the bonus for his magic weapon is below this number. Lower the levels of the monsters he encounters accordingly. So, a 16th level PC that only has a +1 magic weapon should be treated like a 14th level PC for the purpose of which monsters are considered suitable challenges.

I think it just might work.

Do not forget that characters and monsters get hp and abilities as they level. A 6th level Fighter with normal equipment and a 1st level Fighter armed with +5 equipment may have the same EL but in a fight between the two the 6th level fighter will have an advantage.

 

[prosfilaes]

I'm against most ascending math, except for HP. HP actually represents the increasing luck, toughness, and bad-assness of the players, and I don't think we really need to represent that through anything but that. Remove the half level bonuses and magic item bonuses to attack and defenses, and that should be more than good enough.

I'd go the opposite way. Increasing AC is explained clearly in the course of the game. Increasing attack bonuses makes sense in the context of the game. The explanation of HP as increasing luck really, really starts to get stretched. My goblin, 30 lbs, average strength and health, who gets caught in a null-magic zone by an orc, is guaranteed to survive three strikes from a greataxe (1d12+3 * 3 = 45 versus 51 HP for being a 20th level wizard) and on average will survive six hits. How? Don't tell me that losing HP isn't necessarily damage; then you've got a mechanic where you roll to hit but a hit isn't necessarily a hit. You're separating the fluff from the mechanics, and blurring the meaning of AC and HP.

No, IMO, characters should be able to magically and mundanely make themselves harder to hit, and should skillfully and magically hit better, but ultimately they're just flesh and blood, and when they take a hit, the rules should reflect that.