Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 DarkTemplar Dec 11, 2008 3:03:52	This question is primarily concerned with power levels in the early game. What would be the likely effect of changing all bases from 10+X to 5+X? It would involve, basically, -5 to all defense statistics (Armor, Fortitude, Reflex, Willpower)... I think, on a level, it would be slightly more exciting to roll a d20 + 4 against 8 than against 13. It would eliminate the constant "roll, sorry, you didn't roll high enough"; "well, what do I need to roll?"; "if you really want to know, 18" deal. I think that there's a nuisance in trying to constantly roll high. Perhaps this idea would work for Heroic tier as 5+X, Paragon tier as the current-standard 10+X, and Epic tier as 15+X. As you progress up the tiers, the power level ramps up. The major foreseeable gripe would be the idea that you have to book-keep all heroic and epic creatures for their defenses; and that the heroes have a low defense score to start, as well -- but, generally, heroes find ways to boost their scores. Perhaps the idea would only apply to minions. I think that this idea has some potential merit, but I can't quite figure out if I'm just insane, or if there could be some cleverness in here. Starting at 10, to me, seems like saying "half of the rolls on your d20 aren't going to help you". Then again, there's a complex math question of average bonuses, the typical actual result, and the average defense of a creature. After all, when do you ever even see a defense score of 10? It's like the power level of D&D was evened out, and made a universal standard rather than considered for the oft-imbalanced combats we keep finding ourselves running.
#2 Qube Dec 11, 2008 5:22:25	one thing I can think of: fighters power that gives +4 to attack become less usefull: old +4, changing 50% to 70% hit chance = a 40% increase new +4, changing 75% to 95% hit chance = a 26.66...% increase edit: things are already hard to hit on epic. no need to give 5 extra ...
#3 rikiji Dec 11, 2008 7:12:38	Right now the game is balanced so that the characters should be able to hit roughly 50% of the time throughout their career - this is an improvement over previous versions where you rarely hit at lower levels and rarely missed at higher ones. Almost every system in the game is tweaked to support this balance - stat progression, magic items, feats, class abilities, etc. Modifying it in the way you suggest would require rebuilding the system from the ground up and would be a balancing nightmare. That said, I can't think of any circumstance when a low level character should have to roll an 18 to hit an opponent. Most opponents should require around an 8-10, with tough ones a 12 or 14 at worst. Either your players are completely disregarding the system and neglecting their primary attack stat, or you're not balancing encounters for the party. It's definately a good idea to adjust the difficulty of encounters for the party and their are viable strategies in the DMG to do so, but changing a core mechanic of the game is overkill.
#4 sorafireheart Dec 11, 2008 7:46:54	I would agree with the above post, a 5 point change in defenses will add a 25% to everyone's to hit roll. heroic level will have most fights be allot easier and last allot shorter with some fights being a cake walk for who wins initiative. Epic levels will be the opposition effect with dragging out the battles because the 50% base chance to hit now becomes a 25% base chance, lots of misses and battles taking so long that players and Dm just get bored.
#5 big_j_money Dec 11, 2008 10:05:04	Two effects I can see #1) Defensive bonuses will probably give relatively higher bonuses (percentage-wise) but feel less useful (they won't stop a lot of attacks). Someone can do the math on that. #2) PCs rely on healing but (most) monsters don't. PCs will have fewer chances to heal each other before they go down for the count. I think the difficulty of the game would increase some. -- John M.
#6 tequila_sunrise Dec 11, 2008 10:31:25	I don't think that a really watered-down version of this rule would break the game, and might very well make it more fun. But first I suggest dropping the idea of scaling base DCs from heroic to paragon to epic; the game already gets tougher as everyone gains levels. Second I'd suggest you start playtesting this house rule by changing defensive DCs to 8; if it turns out to be a bad idea the chance of a TPK is less likely; if it turns out to be a good idea you can always lower it further to 5 or whatever. TS
#7 DarkTemplar Dec 11, 2008 13:56:23	I don't think that a really watered-down version of this rule would break the game, and might very well make it more fun. But first I suggest dropping the idea of scaling base DCs from heroic to paragon to epic; the game already gets tougher as everyone gains levels. Second I'd suggest you start playtesting this house rule by changing defensive DCs to 8; if it turns out to be a bad idea the chance of a TPK is less likely; if it turns out to be a good idea you can always lower it further to 5 or whatever. I agree. The thought of based on tiers came as a sort of after-thought, and wasn't really considered. 8+X would be a simpler way (-2, which is our standard DM fudge zone), given that now stats ought to start a 8 or 10, based on the point-buy rules, and probably wouldn't throw it all out of whack as much. I do think that most of us should be rolling against 8-12, up to 14 for low-level heroic fights. Some heroes can't really put bonus onto their attacks, such as wizards -- okay, so they might have area effects, but so often, "Magic Missile" becomes "Magic Miss".
#8 Stuntman Dec 11, 2008 15:25:16	Starting at 10, to me, seems like saying "half of the rolls on your d20 aren't going to help you". Then again, there's a complex math question of average bonuses, the typical actual result, and the average defense of a creature. After all, when do you ever even see a defense score of 10? It's like the power level of D&D was evened out, and made a universal standard rather than considered for the oft-imbalanced combats we keep finding ourselves running. As one of the other members have said, the game is balanced so that against an average foe, your chances of hitting are 50%. Are you finding that a 50% of hitting an average foe does not feel good enough? One good thing about a 50% average is that there is room to move the chance to hit up and down when fighting harder or easier foes. If you are fighting an easy foe, you may hit 75% of the time and against a hard foe you may only hit 25% of the time. This would make the difference rather noticeable going up or down. If you try to change the balance by making the chance to hit an average foe 75%, then the added frequency of being able to hit easier foes become less pronounced. The game allows actions and strategy that allows you to get bonuses to hit. There are a variety of ways to get a +1 or +2 to hit. The most obvious way is to gain combat advantage. A variety of powers and other ways that allow you or allies to get bonuses to hit as well. There is even the aid another action that allows you to give an ally a +2 to hit against any defence. If you change the system to make your chance of hitting higher, then it reduces the value of these types of strategies. Players may just end up just standing there and attacking since any effort to gain bonuses to hit do not seem worth it since you are already hitting quite often.
#9 tequila_sunrise Dec 11, 2008 17:16:05	Some heroes can't really put bonus onto their attacks, such as wizards -- okay, so they might have area effects, but so often, "Magic Missile" becomes "Magic Miss". I assume you're talking about implements' lack of proficiency bonus to attack rolls. If so, it's important to understand that the game is balanced with this in mind--monster NADs are generally a couple points lower than their ACs, so implement users don't need proficiency bonuses to hit just as often as weapon users. TS
#10 DarkTemplar Dec 11, 2008 20:27:04	I have a general annoyance with the concept of "50%" to hit, and bonuses, to me, sometimes strike me as a little... well... as a matter of "is it 'enough'?" Presuming we're trying to strike difficulty 10, and using a flat d20 plus given bonus as below. +1: Not worth enough. How often do you actually roll 1 under the score you need? +2: 10% boost over the average 50%, useful enough to count. 60% chance to hit begins to be nice. +3: Often not quite enough of a boost over +2, but triple the +1 bonus. I often would rather see a +3 bonus than a +2 bonus. +4: Twice the +2 bonus, quadruple the +1 bonus. A 70% chance to hit means you're finally close enough to earn a C for the semester, and pass. +5: 75% chance to hit, at the least. I think that I like to see the threshold of bonuses start somewhere around +4, given the circumstances. If you started at 8 rather than 10 (some 3.5E materials utilized the concept of 8+X or 5+X in SR and other mechanics), it makes the 8-12 range much more interesting. A variation of 4, where +2 to -2 is standard. You can't get defenses below 10 (unless you put your 8 into your Dexterity, and even then it only pans out to a -1). On average, though, I seem to see starting characters that roughly have between a +4 and +6 bonus to hit, supposing an estimated +3 (+2 to +4) in your primary ability score, and a weapon (+2 to +3 with feat). On the other hand, mages tend to have difficulty acquiring a bonus except from an implement. Clerics seem to never start with a bonus greater than +3, and are relatively wimpy (unless using a decent/superior weapon, giving them something around +5 to +6). NAC = Non Armor Class? Sometimes I think that "Armor" defense is becoming less and less important to view as "AC", which has been the be-all-end-all of D&D. Now we have Armor and Reflex for physical characteristics, and Fortitude and Willpower for mental characteristics. Why call it "Armor Class" any more? It breaks the flow of the four defense scores. Armor defense. Nothing wrong with that, in my eyes. Armor, Reflex, Fortitude, Willpower. (This, however, is my own personal tangent, more of a style-trait than anything.) I don't like the idea that we constantly have to calculate out these scores, and determine them all as starting at 10, but it counts for something to me. Fortitude and Armor are the more "forceful attack" defenses, where Reflex and Will are the "finesse attack" defenses. Sometimes, I think that there aren't 'enough' at-will / passive abilities to make up for the demi-lack of encounter abilities, and daily powers (at least in LFR) seem to fall to the back burner except in climactic battles. I've seen at least a half-dozen threads where people have tried to come up with solutions for recharging and restoring used powers to avoid the conceptual '5-minute day', as well as trying to enable the low-level characters to all have something flavorful to do. I miss the days of having a wide assortment of interesting powers at low-levels -- that you could have two encounter powers, two daily powers, and three at-will powers, enabling you to have more variety in your attacks -- otherwise becoming a sort of 'flat' character who has to take a sort of Diablo-style point progression, where you buy the skill, and only 1 skill, when you reach your next level where you gain a skill. Do you want a conjuration cleric, a "enable you to use your surges" cleric, a "save your surges" cleric? It strikes me as the path system, but a lot narrower, and I miss the idea of having the ability to choose unique, clever powers at each level, which add flavor -- but the problem is that it upsets the balance -- which a lot of people seem to still be unhappy with. But, if you want to counter-balance it in one direction, you have to put something on the other scale, to even out the weight, you know?
#11 rikiji Dec 12, 2008 10:33:37	On average, though, I seem to see starting characters that roughly have between a +4 and +6 bonus to hit, supposing an estimated +3 (+2 to +4) in your primary ability score, and a weapon (+2 to +3 with feat). On the other hand, mages tend to have difficulty acquiring a bonus except from an implement. Clerics seem to never start with a bonus greater than +3, and are relatively wimpy (unless using a decent/superior weapon, giving them something around +5 to +6). Remember that, on average, AC is roughly 2 higher than Fort, Ref and Will. A +6 to hit vs. AC is comparable to a +4 to hit vs. Fort, Ref or Will. A starting character shouldn't have less than a +5 to hit AC (+3 stat, +2 proficiency) or a +3 to hit other defenses (+3 stat). Bonuses can go as high as +9 to hit AC (+5 stat, +3 proficiency, +1 class - fighter) or +5 to hit other defenses (+5 stat). A lazer cleric with a +3 to hit is fine as his attacks target secondary defenses, a melee cleric should start with a +5 - +8 bonus, same as other melee characters (more than +6 requires a racialy favored stat or a high accuracy weapon).
#12 Stuntman Dec 12, 2008 18:09:19	+1: Not worth enough. How often do you actually roll 1 under the score you need? I understand how you feel here. A +1 doesn't feel like you would really notice the difference often enough. This is what you get if you charge. +2: 10% boost over the average 50%, useful enough to count. 60% chance to hit begins to be nice. +3: Often not quite enough of a boost over +2, but triple the +1 bonus. I often would rather see a +3 bonus than a +2 bonus. +4: Twice the +2 bonus, quadruple the +1 bonus. A 70% chance to hit means you're finally close enough to earn a C for the semester, and pass. +5: 75% chance to hit, at the least. If you look at the attack modifiers table in the PHB p.279, you will find that many modifiers start at +/- 2 and increase from there. If you can apply multiple conditions, the modifiers are higher either way. I think that I like to see the threshold of bonuses start somewhere around +4, given the circumstances. If you started at 8 rather than 10 (some 3.5E materials utilized the concept of 8+X or 5+X in SR and other mechanics), it makes the 8-12 range much more interesting. A variation of 4, where +2 to -2 is standard. You can't get defenses below 10 (unless you put your 8 into your Dexterity, and even then it only pans out to a -1). I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to say. Many conditions already apply a +2 or -2, so you get a variation of 4 already. If you need an 11 to hit, you could end up with requiring a 9 or 13 with just one condition. If you are able to get additional bonuses, the range is even wider. NAC = Non Armor Class? Sometimes I think that "Armor" defense is becoming less and less important to view as "AC", which has been the be-all-end-all of D&D. Now we have Armor and Reflex for physical characteristics, and Fortitude and Willpower for mental characteristics. Why call it "Armor Class" any more? It breaks the flow of the four defense scores. Armor defense. Nothing wrong with that, in my eyes. Armor, Reflex, Fortitude, Willpower. (This, however, is my own personal tangent, more of a style-trait than anything.) It sounds like you have an issue with the word "class" in the name "armour class?" The name is a legacy from previous editions. I'm sure you can call it Armour defence instead of Armour Class if you like. Perhaps petition for the name change in 5E (assuming the defences are still the same). I don't like the idea that we constantly have to calculate out these scores, and determine them all as starting at 10, but it counts for something to me. Fortitude and Armor are the more "forceful attack" defenses, where Reflex and Will are the "finesse attack" defenses. I'm not sure exactly what your issue is here. Do you have an issue with adding a base of 10 to these scores? Do you have an issue that there are so many different types of defences? Sometimes, I think that there aren't 'enough' at-will / passive abilities to make up for the demi-lack of encounter abilities, and daily powers (at least in LFR) seem to fall to the back burner except in climactic battles. I've seen at least a half-dozen threads where people have tried to come up with solutions for recharging and restoring used powers to avoid the conceptual '5-minute day', as well as trying to enable the low-level characters to all have something flavorful to do. As long as you have daily powers, you will have some 5-minute day issues. There currently exists a thread that discuss how to handle players taking extended rests after every encounter. I miss the days of having a wide assortment of interesting powers at low-levels -- that you could have two encounter powers, two daily powers, and three at-will powers, enabling you to have more variety in your attacks -- I don't know when you got to have 2 encounter, 2 daily and 3 at-will powers at low levels. You have to wait until level 5 before you get this many powers currently in 4E and you have to be human to get a third at-will. otherwise becoming a sort of 'flat' character who has to take a sort of Diablo-style point progression, where you buy the skill, and only 1 skill, when you reach your next level where you gain a skill. Do you want a conjuration cleric, a "enable you to use your surges" cleric, a "save your surges" cleric? I'm not familiar with Diablo, so I do not quite understand what you are getting at. It seems that you feel that a class should be able to do everything that class is capable of. It seems you feel that the limit of 2 at-wills is too few and you are unsatisfied that you have to choose which power not to take because you want more than 2. If this is the case, then you can always make a house rule where you get to choose more at-will powers.
#13 DarkTemplar Dec 12, 2008 19:14:07	I understand how you feel here. A +1 doesn't feel like you would really notice the difference often enough. This is what you get if you charge. As in "not usually significant, but with enough of them, it becomes significant". I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to say. Many conditions already apply a +2 or -2, so you get a variation of 4 already. If you need an 11 to hit, you could end up with requiring a 9 or 13 with just one condition. If you are able to get additional bonuses, the range is even wider. I guess I'd rather see +3/-3 thrown into most places... It sounds like you have an issue with the word "class" in the name "armour class?" The name is a legacy from previous editions. I'm sure you can call it Armour defence instead of Armour Class if you like. Perhaps petition for the name change in 5E (assuming the defences are still the same). I wonder why they didn't just bother throwing out the legacy name already. It's trying to still be important, but with 3 other defenses, it breaks the flow. I don't really want to petition, as much as I like to just use it to be subversive. It's still Armor, but it's a defense, not a "class", y'know? I can imagine some fool out there asking if he can take the "Armor" class, and what his at-wills are for first level. Heh. But, really, I love the old editions -- and I'm used to creating material for 3rd edition, so 4th threw me off entirely. I'm not sure exactly what your issue is here. Do you have an issue with adding a base of 10 to these scores? Do you have an issue that there are so many different types of defences? Moreso that it's all base 10, but if every character ends up with at least a +2 to +4, why start it all at 10? Why couldn't it be d20 with a small bonus? People like bonuses, so we start it at 10, instead of 8 or 5. And 10 is a nice, round number for people to work with. As long as you have daily powers, you will have some 5-minute day issues. There currently exists a thread that discuss how to handle players taking extended rests after every encounter. The one that discusses heroic surges, or recharging a power after milestones seems to get the most charge out of me. I don't know when you got to have 2 encounter, 2 daily and 3 at-will powers at low levels. You have to wait until level 5 before you get this many powers currently in 4E and you have to be human to get a third at-will. My kvetch is "why human?" Why does a specific race get to have 3 at-wills, and no other? I like having variance in my at-will abilities. I'm not familiar with Diablo, so I do not quite understand what you are getting at. It seems that you feel that a class should be able to do everything that class is capable of. It seems you feel that the limit of 2 at-wills is too few and you are unsatisfied that you have to choose which power not to take because you want more than 2. If this is the case, then you can always make a house rule where you get to choose more at-will powers. I get the concept that "if you want a Wisdom cleric, you select the 2 (of 4) Wisdom powers, but you won't have melee power" and "if you want a Strength cleric, you select the 2 Strength powers, but you won't have powers that attack anything but AC" -- and if you split it, you now have to split your ability score focus, and you become a "jack of all trades, master of none". I like the idea that a character can be a "jack of some trades, master of a couple".
#14 bastard_dm Dec 13, 2008 0:19:32	+1: Not worth enough. How often do you actually roll 1 under the score you need? I get the concept that "if you want a Wisdom cleric, you select the 2 (of 4) Wisdom powers, but you won't have melee power" and "if you want a Strength cleric, you select the 2 Strength powers, but you won't have powers that attack anything but AC" -- and if you split it, you now have to split your ability score focus, and you become a "jack of all trades, master of none". I like the idea that a character can be a "jack of some trades, master of a couple". You can build a perfectly viable character able to do both if you go with 16s in two attributes instead of an 18 in one. You have already said that a +1 bonus is not enough to notice, so I'm confused as to how this is any different. Two at-will powers and a basic attack is a lot more "at-will" options than characters had in the past (usually either attack or full attack). In a 4-round combat at level 1, I have time to: -use my encounter power -use one of my at-will powers -use my other at-will power -use my racial power, my human 3rd at-will power, or one of my other at-will powers a second time. This doesn't even take into account trying to do something creative, like use the terrain to my advantage or aid an ally in need. This is just using my powers- the basic capabilities of my character. For most classes, there isn't even that much of a difference between the various at-will powers. If you were to allow each player to take an extra at-will power, most probably wouldn't even notice the change. Also, it makes that third at-will power humans get (instead of a unique racial encounter power) a lot less special. And honestly- for a lot of builds, finding three at-will powers worth taking is already challenging. If I wanted to build an archer ranger, what 4 at-will powers would I take? So I guess I'm not understanding what your complaints are; "jack of some trades, master of a couple" is a very good way to describe most 4e characters. What more do you want?
#15 Stuntman Dec 13, 2008 1:28:38	I wonder why they didn't just bother throwing out the legacy name already. There seems to be many legacy names in 4E other than armour class. They could have renamed more than just armour class, but they chose to stick with the various legacy names. I guess they stuck with legacy names as homage to previous editions. Moreso that it's all base 10, but if every character ends up with at least a +2 to +4, why start it all at 10? Why couldn't it be d20 with a small bonus? People like bonuses, so we start it at 10, instead of 8 or 5. And 10 is a nice, round number for people to work with. I think there is some psychology of D&D players that contributes to the reasons as well as mathematics. The number 10 is just easy to remember when working out defences. After all things considered, you probably hit on a 10 or higher which means 55% chance of hitting on average. That seems to be the standard that D&D goes by. My kvetch is "why human?" Why does a specific race get to have 3 at-wills, and no other? I like having variance in my at-will abilities. I think the standard is 2 at-wills. The extra at-will that humans get fits with the flavour of humans in that they are particularly good at the class they choose. It's like their extra skill from their class. If some other races get 3 at wills, what should you remove from those races to balace things or what else do you add to humans to balance them? I get the concept that "if you want a Wisdom cleric, you select the 2 (of 4) Wisdom powers, but you won't have melee power" and "if you want a Strength cleric, you select the 2 Strength powers, but you won't have powers that attack anything but AC" -- and if you split it, you now have to split your ability score focus, and you become a "jack of all trades, master of none". The way the game is designed, I find that you need to make some decisions about what you want your character to be able to do. These decisions have meaning because if you choose to do one thing you have to choose not to do another. The fact that you have to pick additional details even after you pick your race and class just adds to the variety of character that are available. Not only do you choose a cleric, but the choice in how you assign your abilities and which powers you choose means you choose what type of cleric. You seem to be unhappy that there are a number of choices you have to make even after choosing your class. You seem to want to be just a plain old cleric and not have to choose between a melee cleric and a ranged cleric. Do you want just one type of cleric instead of many? Do you want all rangers to have all of the benefits of archery style, two-bladed style and beast companion instead of having to choose only one of them? Do you want fighters to have only one of the one-handed, two-handed, temptest or battlerage options or all of them? I like the idea that a character can be a "jack of some trades, master of a couple". It seems as though you want characters to do more than what is the standard. You can always house rule that classes get more powers and have a higher number of points in which to purchase their ability scores. This way, you can afford to have more than one high ability score, able to select more powers and also be able to hit better. If you feel that it is more fun this way, that is what you can do.
#16 DarkTemplar Dec 15, 2008 1:02:10	Too many encounter powers to select from, too few encounter powers received. Too few at-will powers to select from, too few at-will powers. Why not give at-will powers 3-4 (human 4-5) out of a selection of 6 or 7, to bring it just a little closer to the current proportion of encounter powers: 1 for every 3-4. At every level you don't gain a power you currently do, you gain another Encounter power of lower level (any power). It would make focusing a lot better. And for each class, come up with 2-5 more at-will powers, to really create some class variety in combat tactics. At 10th and 20th level, you could gain those powers, alternatively -- or 11th, and 21st, depending. Make at-will powers "juicier". More effective feats that improve powers.
#17 Stuntman Dec 16, 2008 1:23:24	Too many encounter powers to select from, too few encounter powers received. Too few at-will powers to select from, too few at-will powers. I had a dry run at a combat encounter with some new 4E players the other day. It was their first time playing 4E and it was a warm up before I begin the campaign. We wanted to just have a mock battle to give us a taste of 4E combat. Here is what I observed. All characters were level 1. Even at level 1, it seems that at the beginning of combat, players have the option of having a total of 5-8 powers to use (including Second Wind and Spend an Action Point). All characters had 2 (3 for the human) at-wills, their basic attacks (ranged basic attack was a viable option to 2 characters who had melee at-wills only) their 1 encounter power, their 1 daily power, and any class or racial encounter power (eg., Fey Step). When I look at this, it seems that even at level 1, there is enough options to chose from at the beginning of combat. Realistically, players would have the option of probably 3 to 5 things that make sense to do at the beginning of combat and the options would probably reduce to the 2 at-wills towards the end. However, players had to look at all of the 5-8 options and then narrow down what powers they should use (in addition to moving). If you wanted to double the number of powers, I feel that the number of options would be quite overwhelming. I just feel that the number of powers available is enough to give novice players enough options to choose from and not overwhelm them. As players play their characters more and advance in levels, they will start to learn what powers are good to use in any given situation and would be able to narrow down the choices more quickly. This would enable them to manage more powers better. As you go up in levels, you do get more powers and more options. I understand that you feel players should get more options. I thought the options seem limited when I first read through the books. After seeing the game in action, I understand why the options seem so limited. I think that having more powers would not necessarily make it better. In any case, you will get more powers as you go up in level, so players have something to look forward to as they level up. When making a character, I feel that you have to make some important choices on what powers to take. The choices are important because you get so few of them. I personally like this aspect of 4E. Make at-will powers "juicier". At-wills are supposed to be your standard powers. Encounters are supposed to be the juicier powers and Dailies are the juiciest powers of them all. You get more encounters and dailies as you go up in level. As you gain levels, you have more juicier powers available to you.