| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| #1PramxnimNov 16, 2009 4:00:14 | This is not a new issue, nor is it one that hasn't been debated. We all know about the feat taxes that WoTC released in order to "fix" the math inherent in 4e, where PCs' attacks and defenses progresses much more slowly than monsters at higher levels. For those who do not know, I'm referring to the Expertise line of feats as well as the Paragon and Epic Non-AC defense boosting feats (Weapon Expertise, Implement Expertise, Focused Expertise, Great Fortitude, Paragon Defenses etc.). From a different thread on the 4e Char Op forums, Kaviyd3 referred me to the section in the DMG 2 about companion characters, and suggested axing enhancement bonuses, expertise feats and stat modifiers to attack and base attack bonus on level instead of half-level. I for one think it's a good idea to implement, and I'd like to get some other opinions on this subject. In a nutshell, I would like to houserule the following change: I/ With regards to attack bonuses:- A PC's attribute no longer contributes to his/her attack bonus (having a 20 Str does not add anything to your attack bonus). - Magic items no longer give out enhancement bonuses to attack or damage. - The Expertise line of feats are banned. To counter the above changes, a player's attack bonus is simply 4 + his or her level+Any proficiency bonuses + Class-based bonuses. i.e. A level 4 PC will have +8 to attack, and a level 30 PC will have a +34 to attack, not including proficiency bonuses or class-based bonuses. The above is equivalent to a PC having a 20 starting score in his or her attack stat, and a final score of 30 in that same stat, since 34 = 15 (1/2 level) + 10 (stat mod) + 6 (enhancement) + 3 (expertise) in normal games. Monster ACs, according to the DMG are 13-17 + Level (avg 14+Level), so a PC will hit a monster's AC on a roll of 10 or higher, on average, always. I've checked the attack bonus progression between the newer, simplified version and the older, more cumbersome one and there are about 8 places where the progressions differ (at levels 2, 8, 13, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 28) by 1 point, but the former has a much smoother progression than the latter. II/ With regards to damage:Even if a player's stats no longer add to their attack, the description of powers in 4e specifically state whether or not they add a stat modifier to damage, so that portion remains unchanged. There is a need to adjust the scaling of damage now that enhancement bonuses are gone. The DMG 2 suggests giving companion characters 1/2 level to damage, to compensate them for not having feats and magic items, but for PCs, those should exist to allow for customization. Therefore, I think an inherent bonus to damage over the levels should be enough to mitigate the loss of enhancement bonuses. The DMG 2 suggests increases at levels 2, 7, 12, 17, 22 and 27, and that should be a starting point for all DMs who want to get rid of enhancement bonuses. I am partial to an increase at levels 1, 7, 11, 17, 21 and 27, but that's just me. If I were to run a game, the following scenario will happen: Mialee, a Lvl 1 Wizard with 18 Int uses Magic Missile. She will make an attack at +5 bonus and deal 2d4+5 damage on a hit. III/ AC and Non-AC defenses:So attack bonus is really simple to figure out, but what about defenses? Unlike monsters and companion characters whose ACs and NADs are easy to figure out by role, PC classes wear different armor and have different NAD boosts depending on class and race. I'm afraid I haven't thought of any simple method that won't make the PCs carbon copies of each other (at least with attack bonuses, everyone is expected to be similar). So Armor and NAD boosters will have to stay.
IV/ Dude, where's my magic item?By eliminating the need to purchase more effective gear at each level, PCs are encouraged to try out strange new magic items that have never seen use before. A PC might be perfectly happy using a mundane weapon and armor and still being effective. The above rulings also help make magic items rare and precious again, as there is no need for the DM to hand out a lot of them to help boost the PCs stats anymore, which opens up a lot of room for creative placement of fun and exciting magic items. V/ So, what's the catch?The fixed attack bonus might feel a bit bland to some, and others will complain about the similarities between classes and point out something along the lines of "3.5 allows for more customization, yo!" I totally agree, but I would also like to point out that in with greater flexibility comes greater discrepancies, and PC strength could vary wildly across the board, just like back in 3.5. In 4e, the PCs have to work together as a team, and it's not fun to find that a teammate is much more accurate and more sturdy than you just because they invested in the right stats and feats. By standardizing attack bonuses and mitigating feat taxes, unusual character concepts with non-optimal stat distribution can see the light of day (like that Fighter with a starting 14 strength, or the only slightly smarter than average Wizard). Sure they will be less effective by dealing less damage and getting less out of their power's rider effects, but at least they won't be seeing a string of misses all the time, and are equally likely to contribute to an encounter as the other PCs. A standardized attack bonus also allows for weird multiclassing and hybrids without too much loss of effectiveness (like that Monk|Barbarian someone always wanted to try, for example). This could potentially create a gamebreaking combo, but that's where the DM steps in and says "That's ridiculous! You can't do that!" With that, I shall leave the topic open to discussion. What do you think of this series of rulings. What other pros and cons might I have missed? Any suggestions to put on the table? Fire away, people! |
| #2QubeNov 16, 2009 9:37:37 | To counter the above changes, a player's attack bonus is simply 4 + his or her level+Any proficiency bonuses + Class-based bonuses. i.e. A level 4 PC will have +7 to attack, euh ... 4+ level for a lvl 4 character is 8 already ... The above is equivalent to a PC having a 20 starting score in his or her attack stat, and a final score of 30 in that same stat isn't that pushing it a hole lot? you're basically assuming everyone plays has an 18 and uses a race that has +2 on its attack. (18 is rare for MAD characters, and dwarf fighters for instance don't get the +2 to strength ...) Also what is the plan for paladins and such: classes who use 2 attack stats? A PC might be perfectly happy using a mundane weapon and armor and still being effective. The above rulings also help make magic items rare and precious again what you're saying contradicts itself: the first sentence implies magic items are ... bluntly said, useless. to make 'm rare and precious, magic should be powerfull I think, not compensatable. When one could choose between generic sword X and excalibur, a player shouldn't say "meh, I don't like the enchantment on Excalibur, so I'll keep fighting with my own sword" ... he should be saying "why are you asking me this? heck yes I'll fight with Excalibur" |
| #3PrimeSonicNov 16, 2009 10:31:18 | This is not a new issue, nor is it one that hasn't been debated. We all know about the feat taxes that WoTC released in order to "fix" the math inherent in 4e, where PCs' attacks and defenses progresses much more slowly than monsters at higher levels. For those who do not know, I'm referring to the Expertise line of feats as well as the Paragon and Epic Non-AC defense boosting feats (Weapon Expertise, Implement Expertise, Focused Expertise, Great Fortitude, Paragon Defenses etc.). So, give them those feats for free and be done with it. And by the way, the Great Fortitude style feats are not taxes. They aren't required and can still be very useful even if they lack flare. To counter the above changes, a player's attack bonus is simply 4 + his or her level+Any proficiency bonuses + Class-based bonuses. i.e. A level 4 PC will have +7 to attack, and a level 30 PC will have a +34 to attack, not including proficiency bonuses or class-based bonuses. What the hell is "class based bonus"?
Okay, so all you're doing is just calculating the best case scenario of an attack bonus, turning into a single number, and then replacing whatever the PCs have with that? So, where's the "fix" you're taking about?
Um... what are you talking about here? What new progression are you presenting? I don't see it. Even if a player's stats no longer add to their attack, the description of powers in 4e specifically state whether or not they add a stat modifier to damage, so that portion remains unchanged. There is a need to adjust the scaling of damage now that enhancement bonuses are gone. The DMG 2 suggests giving companion characters 1/2 level to damage, to compensate them for not having feats and magic items, but for PCs, those should exist to allow for customization. Therefore, I think an inherent bonus to damage over the levels should be enough to mitigate the loss of enhancement bonuses. So after breaking one thing with a fix that still makes no sense, now we need another fix....
....and it also requires another progression table that has yet to be seen?
Why? So attack bonus is really simple to figure out, but what about defenses? Um, "easy to figure out"??? Nothing made sense so far and now it's about to get more complicated? (I stopped trying to make sense of this around here
What if we don't and say we did?
Finally, an attempt to make sense after all this. I don't see where the ability scores stop having an impact on attack bonuses which was the whole purpose of all this "new math". So, what was it all about in the first place? And once again, I repeat, Great Fortitude, Lightning Reflexes, and Iron Will have their place.
What? Mundane magic items don't do anything anymore, unless you still count the extra dice on critical hits, but with no one keeping track of enhancement, I see problems ahead. And what do you mean by "exciting" magic items? There is a reason why the Deck of Many Things wasn't reprinted. (like that Fighter with a starting 14 strength, or the only slightly smarter than average Wizard). Sure they will be less effective by dealing less damage and getting less out of their power's rider effects, but at least they won't be seeing a string of misses all the time, and are equally likely to contribute to an encounter as the other PCs. Why would the Fighter put a 14 in strength in the first place? Are you still rolling 3d6 in order once for each stat? If you wanted to put that 18 in charisma instead of strength, then either the players are taking the scores too literally, or they picked the wrong class to match the vision of their character. None of this seems necessary as it is really easy to start with a +4 mod in a character;s primary attack score. Heck, the game is designed this way. So, first show me a legit case of a Fighter in 4e with a 14 starting strength and then we'll talk about fixing things.
Bang! |
| #4PramxnimNov 16, 2009 13:14:29 | euh ... 4+ level for a lvl 4 character is 8 already ... Yes, and a generic Barbarian with starting Strength 18, Weapon Expertise (Heavy Blade) and using a +1 Fullblade has a +8 bonus to attack before proficiency. What this does is just cut down on the dependency on Weapon Expertise and magic weapons. An implement user with an 18 in their attack stat, with Implement Expertise and a +1 Implement also has the same attack value... see where I'm getting at here? isn't that pushing it a hole lot? you're basically assuming everyone plays has an 18 and uses a race that has +2 on its attack. (18 is rare for MAD characters, and dwarf fighters for instance don't get the +2 to strength ...) It's true that this progression assumes a fully optimized character in terms of attack stats. What I'm proposing is just an idea, a concept. Numbers can be adjusted to fit an individual DM's game world. If most or all of your PCs are happy with a starting 18 in their attack stat, simply adjust the progression to 3+Level, or heck, 2+Level (but that would simulate having a 16 in a PC's attack stat and progressing from there, which is not that optimal). Alternatively, you can use this rule of thumb to simplify the calculations needed for a PC's attack bonus. If the character started out with a 20 in their attack stat, swell. Have them use the 4+Level progression. If they start out with a lower score, adjust the progression to fit. One adjustment at the beginning of the game, and you're set for most of it without having to calculate (10+1/2 Level+Stat mod+Feat+Enhancement+etc.) every time you level up or obtain a new magic item. The only place where you'll have to make an adjustment past character creation is when the PC hits level 21 and decides to not increase their attack stat by +2 via an ED. If they do so, don't increase their attack bonus at that level and proceed as normal for later levels. (THIS RULE OF THUMB assumes that the expertise line of feats are built in and that the PCs are given magic items appropriate to their level (1 of their level +1, 1 of their level, 1 of their level -1 + Cash) For characters with dual-attack stats, you can either rule that they use the same progression for both, or they only choose to use it for one of their attack stats (although you'll have to think of something to do for the other stat). I don't like this, but again, it depends on the DM.
Magic items ARE powerful. For example, mundane weapons don't give bonus dice on criticals and don't have any effect that magic weapons give. Perhaps I worded it wrongly, but I know for a fact that a few players DO prefer a simple weapon without any strings attached to it. The bonuses to hit and damage over time mitigates somewhat the need for giving out increasingly powerful magic items, and increases the importance of a PC's prowess as opposed to having them rely on the strength of their magic items, which for some mean a lot. Why shouldn't they say "I'm perfectly happy with my ordinary sword"? A PC is free to do whatever they wish within the constraint of the rules and common sense, and what's a DM to do when a player refuses loot because they don't like the way it works? Force it upon them? Note that this is a rare case. Most players I know would jump at the chance to swing Excalibur around and grin like a maniac while doing so, but that's not to say there aren't outliers. |
| #5PramxnimNov 16, 2009 15:12:39 |
That's one way to do it. If that's your way and you're happy with it, that's awesome. Maybe you're right about Great Fortitude and the like, but that's not a point I would argue since I'm not sure about them.
They are class features that add to attack. Fighter Weapon Talent, a Rogue's bonus to attack with a dagger, to name a few.
There it is. Would you argue that it is not simple to add a number to your level and arrive at a PC's attack bonus?
I apologise, I did not have time to present a nicely laid out map. The new progression however, is very easy to picture, even without one. Just start out with a static number (5 in the examples I'm proposing) and add 1 to it every time your character levels up. That number is the character's attack bonus without proficiency bonus.
Her attack bonus is calculated by 4+Level = 4+1 = 5. She does 2d4+Int on a hit, +1 for the inherent bonus to damage at level 1. A very specific example with clearly laid out variables. Why the confusion? So attack bonus is really simple to figure out, but what about defenses? I think adding 4 to your character level to figure out your attack bonus is simple enough, don't you?
What kind of problems do you see ahead? I can certainly see the wealth system falling apart, but that can be rectified by having the DM hand out magic items in loot instead of having PCs buy them in Ye Olde Magic Shoppe. (like that Fighter with a starting 14 strength, or the only slightly smarter than average Wizard). Sure they will be less effective by dealing less damage and getting less out of their power's rider effects, but at least they won't be seeing a string of misses all the time, and are equally likely to contribute to an encounter as the other PCs. Perhaps no Fighter would ever want to start with a 14 in strength in the normal system, but I never claimed that making such a thing possible in this new revision is a "fix". I am not aiming to fix anything other than making calculating attack bonuses easier on the DM and players, and perhaps reducing the dependence on magic items. The thing with weird ability scores is a byproduct of adapting this system, and in my previous post, I mentioned an alternative to taking out stat modifier to attack bonus altogether. To reiterate, the simplistic method of simply assigning X+Level to attack bonus assumes a character fully optimized for attack bonus, provided they have certain starting ability score. (This means increasing the score at each possible venue, level appropriate magic items, expertise feats and an additional +2 to that score at the beginning of epic tier). 4+Level corresponds to a starting stat of 20 (for those who optimized more than the usual norm) 3+Level corresponds to a starting stat of 18 (which is most likely to happen) 2+Level corresponds to a starting stat of 16 (possible in the case of Dwarf Fighters etc.) So now it becomes a shortcut to calculating attack bonus, and that's it. You don't necessarily have to use a catch-all system for attack bonus and ignore the player's stats altogether, and simply use the shortcut to ease the calculations. Does that seem like a decent idea? What I'd like to see is someone catching the problems that will arise allowing people to ignore their attack stat (potential multiclassing abuse, dilettante abuse, a Wizard ignoring damage to boost Orb Lock etc.). Cheers! |
| #6ah_maclimeszeroNov 16, 2009 16:32:34 | I see a potential issue, although I don't know if I would describe it as a problem, per se. That issue is multiclassing. I think you could end with some REALLY weird combinations of things with that system. The reason no one multiclasses a Fighter with high Str and Con into a Wizard is because they wouldn't be able to hit anything with those spells. But now, you've got a system in place where someone who is dumb as rocks could still master the arcane arts, he would just do slightly less damage with his fireballs. Or where a wizard with a 10 strength could still execute a reaping strike EXACTLY as accurately as his friend who is a full-on fighter. He would just hit for SLIGHTLY less damage. For SOME people, this is a great thing. For others, it's a terrible idea. Just pointing it out. |
| #7slater1979Nov 16, 2009 17:23:43 | Terrible Idea lol!!!! I don't see any problem on how to calculate attack bonus. It is very simple. Even more with CB. |
| #8PramxnimNov 16, 2009 17:41:23 | For those who don't have access to the CB, are unfamiliar with the game and its mechanics, and don't feel particularly warmly towards 4e, I'd say making the calculations simpler does help. It's part of what I'm trying to do to get more people in my area interested in 4e. The attack bonus progression is also smoother compared to the normal 4e mechanics, and avoids levels where the PCs suddenly hit much more often (or not often enough at all). Thanks for the input though. That should prepare me for if my players object to the idea. EDIT: @AH: Hmm, I do see people getting turned off by the fact that their companion suddenly can use their powers just as effectively (well, just as accurately, to be more precise). That could bring up a situation not unlike what transpired here. Not that it couldn't make for a fun roleplaying experience! Others would just balk at the idea of a dumb fighter suddenly throwing fireballs around and still hitting, or a Wizard suddenly swinging around that quarterstaff with amazing accuracy and Cleaving into the minion next to him (then again, I know a few people who would laud that as a brilliant idea, and harken back to the ol' 3.5 multiclassing days) |
| #9ah_maclimeszeroNov 16, 2009 21:20:23 | EDIT: @AH: Hmm, I do see people getting turned off by the fact that their companion suddenly can use their powers just as effectively (well, just as accurately, to be more precise). That could bring up a situation not unlike what transpired here. Not that it couldn't make for a fun roleplaying experience! Yeah. Honestly, I'm not actually opposed to the idea. I just think you need to make sure your players are 100% they want to go with that option, and willing to follow it all the way through, before starting up a game with that rule in place. Some players may love it, others may hate it. It's gonna depend on your group. |
| #10PrimeSonicNov 16, 2009 23:06:02 |
This is more along the lines of what you should have opened up with. Really, this did not require so much work. All you had to do was just take one look at how monsters progress in their attack bonuses and presto. Now, the damage bonus isn't all that different and you might actually be able to use the same or a lighter progression. Anyways, while it's nice on paper, it's not something I would personally use. I like the idea of being rewarded for optimizing well. It's part of the game. New players shouldn't be playing in Epic tier anyways. Get them started on Heroic with no magic items and slowly add the complexity to the game over the course of the next 9 levels. |
| #11QubeNov 17, 2009 2:07:56 | euh ... 4+ level for a lvl 4 character is 8 already ... you missed the point: you said that a lvl 4 character gets a +7 bonus, but when I apply it to your formula, they don't. Next up, what do you do about the fact that mutliweapon characters and weapon+implement characters usually don't have has powerfull items as their single weapon counterparts? Magic items ARE powerful. For example, mundane weapons don't give bonus dice on criticals and don't have any effect that magic weapons give. Perhaps I worded it wrongly, but I know for a fact that a few players DO prefer a simple weapon without any strings attached to it. let me ask you this: are magic weapons significantly stronger then mundain ones? (significantly meaning, that it matters) - if they are: players can't use mundain weapon, as without magic weapons, they are too weak. - if they aren't: then who care's about magic weapons? Why shouldn't they say "I'm perfectly happy with my ordinary sword"? A PC is free to do whatever they wish within the constraint of the rules and common sense, And here you're contradicting yourself again. It's common sense that you prefer excalibur over common weapon X, because without excalibur, you have no chance to destroy the dreaded lord Mordred. Even Lancelot can't defeat Mordred, only Arthur wielding Excalibur can. Sure, maybe you rather want to use the sword your daddy gave you, but that would mean, you're sure to lose against Mordred ... |
| #12PramxnimNov 17, 2009 3:25:15 | Hehe, whoops, 'twas but a typo. Sorry, it's now fixed. Well, the thing with mundane and magical weapons is just a preference that depends a lot on the individual campaign that's being run. Let me put it this way: what I would do in my games is have a character wielding a mundane weapon be as accurate as if he or she were wielding his or her +X magic weapon, but the PC would certainly not get all the bonus goodies from said weapon (bonus crit dice, weapon properties or powers). I like games where a hero, having been previously disarmed (or in some situation where drawing their own weapon would be unfeasible), grabs a random sword that they are proficient with and swing with as much devastating might and accuracy as if they were using Excalibur. Then again, it's just a preference and will vary depending on the DM. I don't really see why a game can't be run where the PCs defeat the evil overlord with their skill and prowess and not by using their powerful, shiny magic items. Sure, 4e makes it seem necessary to give players increasingly powerful magic items, but there are ways to circumvent that, and it is something I would like to implement in my games. I understand that it's not everyone's cup of tea, and I have nothing against reliance on magic items. Just trying to throw out a different way of doing things here. |
| #13Neutronium_DragonNov 17, 2009 12:00:25 | Disclaimer: I am uninterested in running low-magic games. I don't find them to be superior or more cinematic or whatever, so I'm not pushing that agenda with this proposal. The following is intended solely to address the attack and defense scaling issues, which are well-recognized by now. TAKE TWO! ========= After thinking about it a bit more, it might be easier to do this without mucking with as many things, and especially without having to rework armor. So how about this? General: You add your character's level - 1 to all attack rolls and defenses, rather than half your character's level. Everything else works as normal, except as specified below. Attacks: The relevant ability modifier is always 5.* Enhancement bonuses no longer apply to attack rolls. The Expertise feats are removed.** Circumstantial attack bonus feats remain, but no longer scale with tier. (Draconic spellcaster is just +1.) AC/Fort/Ref/Will: The relevant ability modifier is always based on the character's ability scores at 1st level. Enhancement bonuses no longer apply. Masterwork armor no longer exists. (Caveat: it could exist as fluff but has no mechanical impact.) The Paragon Defenses, Robust Defenses, and Epic Fortitude/Epic Reflexes/Epic Will feats are removed.** Once per encounter, as a free action, you gain a bonus to AC equal to your armor's enhancement bonus against a single attack. Once per encounter, as a free action, you gain a bonus to Fortitude, Reflex, or Will equal to your neck slot item's enhancement bonus against a single attack. The Result: This should equalize PC attack and defense scaling vs creatures, as well as eliminating the various system patches that were included in the system (feats and masterwork armor). Ability scores and armor remain meaningful elements of your character's defenses, and enhancement bonuses are still useful. * This addresses another issue in the system: the push to spike your attack stat as high as possible to maximize your attack bonus and the corresponding disinclination to play any race that doesn't give a bonus to that stat. The attack stat still benefits the character in all other ways (including damage) so there's still a reason to want it to be high, but it's no longer imperative to squeeze every last point out of it. ** Great Fortitude, Lightning Reflexes, and Iron Will predate the 'math patch' feats and remain in the game. Unyielding Fortitude, Opportune Reflexes, and Indomitable Will from the PHB2 are epic upgrades of those feats that don't stack, so they also remain. |
| #14dave2008Nov 18, 2009 20:41:15 | I like this idea a lot and thought about doing something similar in a future campaign. I will have to look this over more carefully. I was going to make artifacts the only magic items that add to your attack bonus and they should (in mu opinion) unbalance the game some. One quick thought: I would still want to add ability modifiers to my attack bonus, becuase it makes sense. If I am trying to cut through someones armor (AC) I would think being stronger (STR bonus) would give me a better chance (higher AC attack bonus), etc. Otherwise I really like the concept. Get rid of required feats and magic and just assume that your increased experience level means your attack more successfully - makes sense to me. It is more abstract, but I think in a good way. |
| #15Neutronium_DragonNov 22, 2009 23:03:18 | It may or may not make sense (depending on the stat and defense), but it creates the above problem: attack bonus in 4E is simply too valuable to *not* push as high as you possibly can, with the exception of a few 'other people attack for me' character builds. What I've set out above still gives you reason to want your attack stat high - it still influences everything else, including damage (which covers 'hitting harder' in the case of Str vs AC), secondary effects, defenses, and so on. |