Thank you in advance for your input.
1. The sacred cow of +X items would be slaughtered. Magic items would no longer give attack and damage bonuses. They would all have interesting and fun effects (that are not attack or damage bonuses) that are not "expected" in the game's math. Example: A +4 Longsword is bad; A Longsword with a blade made of heatless flames that can shoot little bolts of flame from the tip on command is awesome. Some +2 Chainmail is bad; Chainmail forged by angels that deflects fear as well as it deflects swords is awesome.
2. The math would actually line up evenly, with no gaps or holes.
3. The Daily resource would be no more. All mechanical resources would be tracked on a per encounter basis.
4. NO MORE BATTLEMAPS! Or at least, don't focus so much on movement and positioning with powers, so that the game is easily playable without maps and miniatures. For example, it is easy to estimate mentally, "Ok, you can hit 3 orcs with that Fireball, or you could hit 5 if you risk hitting your buddy." It is not so easy to describe and mentally adjucate a situation in which sliding an enemy 3 squares is advantageous.
4. Characters could be built, from the beginning, based on active powers, passive buffs, or a combination of the two. I find the idea of stances modifying basic attacks from Essentials really intriguing (hell, every Daily I've ever taken provided some encounter long buff, like a Stance or something), but I don't want such a thing to interfere with the people who like using abilities actively. Further, do not "build up" the number of options available to players. If they can use 16 abilities at level 30, they should be able to use 16 abilities at level 1, if they actually want to.
6. Get rid of the silly XP system. Require a set amount of XP per level. Perhaps 100XP each is good? Maybe 1000 if people want more flexibility in rewarding increments. Make it so that a Level 5 character defeating a level 8 encounter gets the same XP as a level 15 character defeating a level 18 encounter, as both should be the same relative difficulty.
7. On the topic of "relative difficulty," make the differences in tiers descriptional, not mechanical. Don't give higher level characters access to mechanics that lower level characters don't have access to. Don't make the difference in levels twofold. Example:
Currently: At level 1, my Fighter dazed a goblin and my Sorcerer threw a small bolt of fire that dealt 25% of the goblin's hit points in damage in some ruins outside my home town. At level 30, my Fighter/Dreadnaught stunned an ancient dragon and my Sorcerer/Firelord dropped a huge bomb of flaming death that dealt damage equal to 35% of the HP of every enemy within 10' of the dragon in his ever-burning lair just inside the 9th circle of hell.
My goal: At level 1, my Fighter/Dreadnaught stunned a goblin and my Sorcerer/Firelord called forth a blast of fire that dealt damage equal to 25% of the HP of every enemy within 10' of the goblin in some ruins outside my home town. At level 30, my Fighter/Dreadnaught stunned an ancient dragon and my Sorcerer/Firelord called forth a blast of fire that dealt damage equal to 25% of the HP of every enemy within 10' of the dragon in his ever-burning lair just inside the 9th circle of hell.
In other words, make the game equally mechanically appealing at all "tiers," and make the sole difference the "feel." Make it so that the heroic battle against the bandit's captain is mechanically resolved in the exact same way that the epic battle against the evil god's incarnate champion is resolved, so the only difference is flavor. This way, I could safely run all my games in the lowest tier, since that is the "feel" my entire group prefers, without feeling cheated out of cool mechanics.
If the former ...
1. No divine or primal power sources
2. No automatic skill trainings (instead of '4+stealth and thievery, rogues get any 6, for example). Probably do away with class skills altogether, really.
3. Fiddle with the math a bit to get it to line up better along the level path.
4. Chuck the XP level advancement system for 'level the PCs up when it feels appropriate'.
5. Make inherent bonuses part of the game from the get-go, and get rid of weapons that are 'just' a bonus to attack and damage.
6. Encourage decoupling mechanics from fluff further (aka 'you can be a barbarian without being a Barbarian. You can be an assassin without being an Assassin. You can be a ninja without being a Ninja').
7. No racial characteristics or bonuses based on culture, but instead let characters take a racial package (genetics) and a cultural package (upbringing).
8. Feats only get a racial prerequisite if they somehow interact with the race's bonuses or powers.
9. Racial stat bonuses are 'here's three, pick any two'. So, for example, dwarves could pick any two of Con, Wis, and Int (I think they should be good artificers, hence INT over STR in my version). Humans get +2 to any 2 stats.
10. No Half-Races.
Just a question, mpl, and I don't mean to derail the thread or bait any flames, but if there is no mechanical difference between level 1 and level 30, if the challenges and abilities are completely flattened as you suggest, why bother leveling up at all? In such a case the "level" statistic would be as vestigial as the +X items that you dislike.
To be honest, I don't really like "leveling" at all, but I can see the value in it. It gives a feeling of progression that a lot of people love.
And "no mechanical difference between level 1 and level 30" is a bit of an exaggeration, though I suppose I can see where you got it from.
I just want the same mechanics available to all levels. I don't really want them to be identical. I want the numbers to stay the same in a relative sense. I don't want a level 1 monster to have 20 HP (just a made up number for the purposes of examples) and a level 30 enemy to have 20 HP, I want a level 1 enemy to have 20 HP and die in 4 average hits, and a level 30 enemy to have 600 HP and die in 4 average hits.
And say, if you can stun something at level 30, you should be able to stun something at level 1. Stun is especially important to this point, actually. Stunning a level 1 monster bones it exactly as much as stunning a level 30 monter. But, currently, level 30 characters have access to way more stunning powers than level 1 characters (who have none). Stun has the same relative effect for the entire game, but you get more of it at the later levels. That's not right.
I am all for damage, hit points, attacks, defenses, etc., all going up each level. But the game should balance in such a way that the challenge remains the same in a relative sense.
To futher illustrate my point, the hit line of a level 1 power right now might read "1[W] + modifier and dazed" while the "upgraded version" at level 27 will read "5[W] + modifier and stunned." My goal would just be to make it so that the level 27 version dazed, just as the level 1 version did, or that the level 1 version stunned, just as the level 27 version did. The damage should still scale, though.
My point is all about keeping things relative.
The thing about progression is, you can't get better if you start at the top. You don't get any sense of improvement if your style of play doesn't change and grow. If a level 1 had access to all the same mechanics as a level 30 and the only thing changing was the numbers, the game would get really boring really fast. (At least the character advancement aspect of it would.)
1. Keep the d20 system. Ok that's kind of obvious.
2. Same Ability scores. Again duh. Assume everything starts from pre-essentials 4e unless noted otherwise.
3. Skill reforms, here's where it gets interesting.
- Each class would be assigned a number of Skill points, like maybe 6 for whichever class has the least. Each class has a class skills list, where you can buy training in a skill for 1 skill point (training gives you +x to whichever skill, and opens up feats and such). In addition for any skill not on the list you can spend one skill point to put it on the list, from then on it acts like a class skill. If you wish you can invest more skill points into a skill you're already trained in, in order to increase your bonus (as well as opening up new feats, and such).
- You'd gain additional skill points via feats, and by leveling up into your higher tiered classes.
4. Paragon paths would start having more requirements again, some probably wouldn't even require a specific class, race, or power source. Others might require multiples there of.
5. Epic destinies same as above.
6. Action Points on a per encounter basis.
7. Racial variations, these are things like Dragonwrought Kobolds, or troll-blooded orcs.
- A variation can be a sub-race, Like the difference between Dark, High, and Green Elves ( Drow, Eladrin, Elves)
- or it could be something that happens to all or many races, like dragon's blood or tainted
- or it could represent a common mutation in a race such as the four armed sahaguin
- or it could represent a race with unstable forms, such as the various elemental manifestations of the Genasi
8. Themes, and lots of them. Use them to do things like Samurai being different from Knights, despite both being fighters.
9. Keep the battle mat, and sell the phb with a bunch of punch out tokens of various races and genders in different levels of armor.
10. A list of mount prices and rarities in the monster manuals.
11. More multi-class feats
12. Make small races not suck at melee.
13. Use the d12 more often.
14. Either more unarmed combat stuff, or some decent unarmed group weapons.
15. Staff-fighters need to be a viable build for one or more classes, maybe a theme. Same for bows, daggers, and swords.
16. Kobolds in the Bloody Phb
mplindustries
1. The sacred cow of +X items would be slaughtered.They would all have interesting and fun effects (that are not attack or damage bonuses) that are not "expected" in the game's math.
3. The Daily resource would be no more. All mechanical resources would be tracked on a per encounter basis.
Salla
4. Chuck the XP level advancement system for 'level the PCs up when it feels appropriate'.
5. Make inherent bonuses part of the game from the get-go, and get rid of weapons that are 'just' a bonus to attack and damage.
rampant
9. Keep the battle mat, and sell the phb with a bunch of punch out tokens of various races and genders in different levels of armor.
13. Use the d12 more often.
Keep em coming
Magic item dependency can be handled with optional rules, so that's not really important to change.
Change the skill system a bit so that you can specialize as you go up in level - straight point buy feels a bit to much for what is essentially just a tactical wargame, thought. I'd make it something simpler, along the lines of "add a new trained skill or +5 to a previously trained skill every N levels".
In order of (IMHO) precedence:
1. establish the power sources you want to draw upon from the very start and ensure that each holds a unique theme. Some examples might be: All arcane classes can perform a number of cantrips; All divine can draw upon channel divinity; All primal can ... in order to ensure that the power source has a unified feel.
2. remove daily mechanic from martial entirely; however, remove at-will from arcane entirely. allow divine and primal to be the mixture of at-will and daily balance.
3. establish the roles you want to draw upon from the very start and at least three core capabilities that those roles will serve. Personally, I'd say leader, defender, striker are the correct roles while allowing each to perform functions that currently fall to controller.
4. remove an XP based reward system. help DMs create progress by a storyline that gives cues for the characters to gain additional powers. Make sure those powers give appropriate narrative authority to players.
5. remove +n style bonuses to equipment. Use equipment to offer additional abilities, but don't worry about it adding a special equipment bonus to attack, damage, defenses. Offering a situational bonus to skills is still an appropo bonus, but it ought to be situational rather than blanket. I'd prefer that players have to choose whether an item will serve their needs sufficiently to spend money, slot, or mental energy of keeping it in inventory.
6. remove class skills to allow for high variance of build options. Allow for a smaller up-front bonus to skills which can grow at tiers to improve the skill bonus over time instead of a constant static bonus. This could allow the skill monkeys back in which try to gain at least some training in many skills rather than much training in a few skills. This could be an area for a few additional skills.
7. create more multiclass options that can build more varied multi-class characters and to make multi-class more attractive as a tool for both roleplay and rich story-telling.
8. create more hybrid options to allow for better cherry-picking of class features from hybrid classes.
9. improve the ritual magic in both cost and time economy to ensure it is an attractive tool, while prohibiting it from becoming an auto-win.
10. return death to -10 instead of bloodied value.
11. create more and better modules that draw upon long-term stories rather than repeated combat encounters.
edit:
12. remove AC and use armor as a balanced approach to damage reduction. Utilize Fort, Ref, Will for defenses. This can allow for armor to serve as a tool in character concept more than optimization. For example, a fighter might want the advantages of leather armor in speed, agility, swimming, jumping, and climbing while a wizard might feel comfortable with a serious penalty to defenses and physical skills while wearing plate armor to reduce damage from rare attacks.
13. Create an easy weapon builder that allows for cherry-picking of weapon features such as versatile, high crit, brutal, defensive, etc. which can be managed in such a way that the weapons offer a variety of interest for roleplay choices as well as optimal selection (honestly, how many are attracted quickly to longswords because of the +3 proficiency modifier; maybe you don't take it, but you think about it longer....huh?)
14. Create an easy implement builder that allows for cherry-picking of implement features (and make all implements equal to superior implements) such as energized, accurate, deadly, etc. which can be managed in such a way that the implements offer a variety of interest for roleplay choices as well as optimal selection (i'm really peeved that as a fey-lock, i can't take an energized (psychic) orb without two feats in order to do so)
15. Remove the weapon proficiency +n. If the AC is removed and all characters are aiming for F, R, W the result will be that a single AC defense always existing +2 - 3 above the NADS will no longer imply the need for attacks with a weapon to gain a +2 - 3 bonus based on the choice of weapon and proficiency with that weapon. Let weapon proficiency bonuses exist solely for the players that wish to represent their character's superior talent with a given weapon by taking a feat that exclusively serves that purpose.
16. Remove weapon damage dice and instead allow the power to determine the appropriate damage dice. Weapons add their attributes such as defensive, high crit, brutal, etc.
17. ...
we'll see if i think of more items i'd like to list.
now i'll read others and possibly converse.
You have some very interesting ideas, some of which I've had myself. Better modules are a given, and #12 is like you are reading my mind. I'm particularly intrigued by #1.
It also seems there is a trend so far with a hatred of bland +# magic items and the XP system as a whole.
Also, as a player who never really cared for multi-classing, could someone please tell me what interests you about multi-classing? Is it just powergaming or is there something else to it? Just an e-mail would be fine, no sense bogging up the thread.
It also seems there is a trend so far with a hatred of bland +# magic items and the XP system as a whole.
I don't mind them, really, but with inherent bonuses they become rather superfluous.
2) Kill the class system. - Any character concept is doable, nothing is restricted to class, but more role.
3) I never paid attention to the XP rules, so you scrap that.
4) All characters are always viable, so each has thier way of going about killing things or succeeding things.
2) Kill the class system. - Any character concept is doable, nothing is restricted to class, but more role.
I like this idea of removing the classes from the game. Imagine how much creative variety could be represented if you formed the first steps of character creation in the following steps:
Choose Power Source - defines some of the unique PS powers you can select or gain automatically
Choose Role - defines some of the unique powers you can select or gain automatically
Choose Race - defines a racial power, apropo stat bumps, and apropo defense bumps
Choose Theme - defines weapon/implement and armor proficiencies (though PS could do this somewhat)
Choose Feat - opening feat
Choose level n power(s) - and we start from there
wouldn't that be interesting. That would allow anyone to cherry-pick the feats and features they most want to use in building their character as well as a number of powers that would be made available to them through Power Source, Role, Race, Theme, and possibly feats.
If most powers were related to more than one stat, this gives a much wider array of selection. So, if all warlock spells were available for CHA and CON rather than CHA or CON; maybe all secondary stats or tertiary stats would still be a hurdle in choosing, but the primary stat could be mutable.
So, this could mean all Arcane spells function on INT or CHA or CON, while all Martial exploits function on STR or DEX or CON, and all Divine prayers function on WIS or CHA or STR. This could also mean that all weapon attacks function on STR or DEX while implement attacks function on CHA or INT or WIS or CON.
honestly, this is a method by which you could allow a large multitude of options while still requiring that some builds consider a balanced approach. It would allow for increased multi-class combinations as well because a character might be able to perform a larger variety of powers from other power sources or other roles without spreading out stats too greatly.
Mr DanTracker,
You have some very interesting ideas, some of which I've had myself. Better modules are a given, and #12 is like you are reading my mind. I'm particularly intrigued by #1.
It also seems there is a trend so far with a hatred of bland +# magic items and the XP system as a whole.
Also, as a player who never really cared for multi-classing, could someone please tell me what interests you about multi-classing? Is it just powergaming or is there something else to it? Just an e-mail would be fine, no sense bogging up the thread.
well, armor right now can be downplayed and re-skinned through roleplay, but the mechanics of wearing plate still apply (IMO) even when re-skinned as leather (or whatever). The same could be said of weapons. Whice creates a new idea:
13. Create an easy weapon builder that allows for cherry-picking of weapon features such as versatile, high crit, brutal, defensive, etc. which can be managed in such a way that the weapons offer a variety of interest for roleplay choices as well as optimal selection (honestly, how many are attracted quickly to longswords because of the +3 proficiency modifier; maybe you don't take it, but you think about it longer....huh?)
14. Create an easy implement builder that allows for cherry-picking of implement features (and make all implements equal to superior implements) such as energized, accurate, deadly, etc. which can be managed in such a way that the implements offer a variety of interest for roleplay choices as well as optimal selection (i'm really peeved that as a fey-lock, i can't take an energized (psychic) orb without two feats in order to do so)
15. Remove the weapon proficiency +n. If the AC is removed and all characters are aiming for F, R, W the result will be that a single AC defense always existing +2 - 3 above the NADS will no longer imply the need for attacks with a weapon to gain a +2 - 3 bonus based on the choice of weapon and proficiency with that weapon. Let weapon proficiency bonuses exist solely for the players that wish to represent their character's superior talent with a given weapon by taking a feat that exclusively serves that purpose.
as for #1, I found myself irritated that arcane spells were no longer offered in one large list. I understand why, but I still found it unappealling. Also, seeing the Monk and Runepriest as well as Assassin brought up issues of deciding that a power source has merit and finding ways to define that power source.
For example, Runepriest is somehow divine, but does not use holy symbols nor channel divinity and lacks a power related to undead. This does not give a strong impression of divine. I find that it would be fitting as a Runic power source, but too late now...
I don't hate that Monk is psionic, but the feel is completely different than otehr psionic users. This breaks that consistancy.
Assassin came as the sole Shadow power source class. I know that the devs have said that they don't suffer from a need to "fill the grid," but I do. There is design space that could be employed in developing additional shadow classes that seems untouched.
So, in creating a new edition, I think that the primary decision becomes, "Where do our heroes gain their abilities from?" and "Does that source of their power offer the same abilities to all heroes of that same source? Why or why not?"
From that point a similar question can be asked about role, "What does the hero contribute to the party? To the adventure? To the player?"
After that is established I think that the next best question is, "How can players best represent the character concept through power source, role, and other factors?"
As for XP, it simply ignores the best elements of telling a story through adventure. I feel it places too much restriction on the DM to respect that the characters are gaining growth even if they are not supposed to.... hmm. that sounds a bit odd. Maybe a better approach.
Maybe you've got a villain for them to face, but you want to ensure they don't approach the villain foolishly early. If you tell them the appropriate milestones for levelling during a story, this guides the growth much better than the players watching an XP calculator clicking upward toward the approximate level of their villain.
Part of the fantastic differentiation between DnD and WoW is that any player could spend countless hours "farming" or "grinding" their way upward in levels with little to no party interaction, social exchange, obstacle, growth, progress, etc. In the DnD setting of an adventure, these elements all make up important facets of gameplay.
If XP is removed, this difference is enhanced.
I enjoy multiclass and hybrid because I find it hard to create an accurate representation of the character concept I most want to play. Also, I think it represents a roleplay choice more than a optimization choice.
Imagine Aragorn from LotR. In FotR he exists most closely to a Ranger or possibly a Fighter. As he develops as a character, his decisions define him as much as his circumstances. During TTT, he appears to be much more closely represented by Fighter and some Warlord flavor. As he reaches the character we see in TRotK, Aragorn has transformed into a formidable warrior best represented by Warlord with some remaining Fighter flavor.
If you attempted to emulate the character concept, how would you do it? Though these three classes all draw upon STR, is that enough to make strong multiclassed or hybrid PCs that fully represent the depth of character?
However, if the character creation offered a less packaged approach, favoring selection of power source and role over a class package, could a similar character be created and developed over a lengthy campaign? I think it could be much more defining.
DnD without classes isn't DnD. It's a defining aspect of this game, a long with the list based effects.
Arcane classes still need at-wills, imho. Granted, they're not the most powerful tool is his bag, but not every tool has to be so. Encounter and daily powers make sense for them, too. Ditto for divine, psionic, and primal classes.
To balance things out, martial classes should start with a base of three at-wills and two encounter powers. The other classes should remain as they are now.
I'm more and more getting to like the idea of themes, and the fact that such gives an extra encounter power. Perhaps some general themes could be had for anyone to use, and then some racial themes could also be had, but one can only choose one theme.
I'd like to see more multiclass options, such as allowing up to three multiclass feats within your primary power source or your role. For example, a wizard would be able to multiclass as sorcerer, bard, and artificer (arcane power source), or as a druid, invoker, or psion (controller role) or any combination thereof, so long as the power source OR role is the same as the primary for your class. However, multclassing outside of both of those parameters would come at the cost of two multiclass feats (for example, if your wizard takes a fighter multiclass, he can only take one other multiclass feat later on; a swordmage, however does not give up two multiclass feats, because both swordmages and fighters share the defender role).
Hybrids would have only two multiclass feats allowed, but so long as they fall within the parameters of their combined roles, it's all good (ie, a hybrid of fighter and wizard has arcane and martial for the power source, and controller and defender for the roles; any multiclass that has ANY of those in common with the main classes would be allowable). Again, if the player chooses a multiclass feat that is our of the realm of his power sources AND roles, he cannot choose a second multiclass feat. The one exception is if a hybrid character is composed of two classes that have the same power source AND the same role (ie, a sorcerer and warlock hybrid). Such a character would be allowed a third multiclass feat, with the same restrictions as above (ie, said sorcerer/warlock could take wizard, ranger, and assassin --arcane, striker, and striker, respectively-- but if he took fighter multiclass, he could only take one other multiclass feat).
Another restriction would be in power swaps: if you have three multiclasses, you can do only one type of power swap per multiclass. Going back to our wizard with sorcerer, bard, and artificer multiclasses: he can take Novice Power for the sorcerer, Acolyte Power for the bard, and Adept Power for the atrificer, HOWEVER, he could not take any two of those powers for any one of those multiclasses. A wizard with a swordmage and fighter multiclass (arcane defender uses 1 available multiclass feat, martial defender takes the other 2), can choose to take Novice and Acolyte powers for the fighter MC, and Adept power for the swordmage MC, or whatever combination suits the player, so long as there is balance of some sort.
Cantrips should be available for all arcane power sources, with equivalents for other power sources. For their game situation, Pathfinder uses osirions for divine and primal power sources, and perhaps that could be something for WOTC to chew on. After all, it would be neat to have your druid able to snap her fingers and start a campfire, no?
For cantrips, etc, Controllers would start with 4 from an available list, all others would start with 3. Feats would enable you to take more 3 more cantrips, if you desired. Multiclassing into a class that uses cantrips would allow you only 1, though, but you still qualify to take the extra cantrips feat.
One more thing on multiclassing: taking a martial multiclass feat would give you proficiency in ONE group of weapons (mace, light blade, spear, etc); this would encompass simple and military weapons, but NOT superior weapons (a wizard using a spear as a staff weapon!). You would have the initial option, though, of replacing group proficiency with proficiency in ONE superior weapon (imagine a wizard with a fighter multiclass showing up with a rapier, and using it proficiently!).
Whew!
- Remove classes
- Remove powersources
- Remove abilities
- Remove predefined items
- Divide Fluff and Mechanics completely.
- Anyone can take any power
- Anyone can take any level of training in any skill
I'd like to see more multiclass options, such as allowing up to three multiclass feats within your primary power source or your role. For example, a wizard would be able to multiclass as sorcerer, bard, and artificer (arcane power source), or as a druid, invoker, or psion (controller role) or any combination thereof, so long as the power source OR role is the same as the primary for your class. However, multclassing outside of both of those parameters would come at the cost of two multiclass feats (for example, if your wizard takes a fighter multiclass, he can only take one other multiclass feat later on; a swordmage, however does not give up two multiclass feats, because both swordmages and fighters share the defender role).
Good post. I just cut the quote to shorten my post and highlight a piece that doesn't make sense.
The bit I have highlighted in bold should read like this:
"For example, if your wizard takes a fighter multiclass, he can only take one other multiclass feat later on; a swordmage, however does not give up two multiclass feats, because both swordmages and wizards share the arcane power source."
What you said in your post was that for a wizard to MC Swordmage it would take up two of his slots, but because he has already MC'd into fighter and gained the defender role* it only takes up 1 slot. This is not true as both Swormage and Wizard share a power source and so it would only require 1 slot to MC.
*in the current 4E system you do not gain a classes role if you MC into it.
I'm just helping you to refine your post, otherwise it's a good post. Me being picky also proves that I read your proposal thoroughly and understood it.
I don't know if you could still call it D&D, but yeah:
- Remove classes
- Remove powersources
- Remove abilities
- Remove predefined items
- Divide Fluff and Mechanics completely.
- Anyone can take any power
- Anyone can take any level of training in any skill
Isn't that called HERO System or Gurps?
If I were to do a new edition, it would mostly be a repeat of 4e but a little cleaned up, gathering up the errata, kind of like 1e to 2e. Here are some changes I would make:
-Small abilities that tie power sources together, such as all arcane classes getting cantrips. These abilities would be minor and preferably something not tied into the class so if you decide to reflavor a class as a new power source you can give it the new power source's abilities and not run into any balance issues.
-Fix the math and eliminate the "feat taxes" such as versatile expertise. Also, no feats would grant universal static bonuses to attack or damage. So there would be no feats that grant bonuses to all attacks, but instead feats that grant bonuses to opportunity attacks, attacks vs prone opponents, etc.
-More extensive playtesting and try to reduce the amount of errata.
-Include some essentials-like martial classes from the beginning but have them more thoroughly integrated into the game so they have more options and are more compatible with standard classes. So they might keep the same power structure but their individual powers might rely more on stances to give them some unique flavor.
-Revise page 42 and recommended monster damage to include guidance on adding status effects.
-Fold the three powerswap feats into MC feats. Dishing out feats and powers just to get equal-level powers just doesn't seem worth it.
-Remove the standard +X magic item bonuses. A +1 bonus will be a rarity. Magic items will instead be defined by unique and interesting abilities. These abilities should be unique but not so powerful as to overshadow the character's class and powers.
-Use armor as DR.
-Make power points actually work.
-Make solos actually interesting as solo creatures. Give them several turns per round (not just multiple attacks per turn), ways to shake off status effects easier, abilities that radically change the encounter (I can't remember where I saw it, but there was a site that presented the idea of worldbreaker abilities, which I really like), etc.
-Fewer classes but more builds.
I'd like to see more multiclass options, such as allowing up to three multiclass feats within your primary power source or your role. For example, a wizard would be able to multiclass as sorcerer, bard, and artificer (arcane power source), or as a druid, invoker, or psion (controller role) or any combination thereof, so long as the power source OR role is the same as the primary for your class. However, multclassing outside of both of those parameters would come at the cost of two multiclass feats (for example, if your wizard takes a fighter multiclass, he can only take one other multiclass feat later on; a swordmage, however does not give up two multiclass feats, because both swordmages and fighters share the defender role).
Good post. I just cut the quote to shorten my post and highlight a piece that doesn't make sense.
The bit I have highlighted in bold should read like this:
"For example, if your wizard takes a fighter multiclass, he can only take one other multiclass feat later on; a swordmage, however does not give up two multiclass feats, because both swordmages and wizards share the arcane power source."
What you said in your post was that for a wizard to MC Swordmage it would take up two of his slots, but because he has already MC'd into fighter and gained the defender role* it only takes up 1 slot. This is not true as both Swormage and Wizard share a power source and so it would only require 1 slot to MC.
*in the current 4E system you do not gain a classes role if you MC into it.
I'm just helping you to refine your post, otherwise it's a good post. Me being picky also proves that I read your proposal thoroughly and understood it.
Thank you for pointing it out.
Here's the idea that I wanted to get across:
for example, if your wizard takes a fighter multiclass, he can only take one other multiclass feat later on; a swordmage who takes a fighter multiclass, however, does not give up two multiclass feats, because both swordmages and fighters share the defender role.
It is true that MCing into another different class does not give you that particular role; you're just flavoring your character, like adding Tabasco to a slice of pizza. I'm sure you've noticed that it is your class' primary role and power source that determines how many MC feats you can take.
Hope that clarifies things.
1.) Eliminate feat taxes; make the math work. These are really the same issue. No blanket +n to damage or attack or defense either from weapons or from feats, although I do like the idea of flavorful, situational bonuses to attack. As someone mentioned earlier, +n to damage against prone enemies, or +n to opportunity attacks. No freakin' Toughness, man.
2.) XP - This is not an essential change. The way I see it, if you're going to track XP you'll tack it, you will, and if you're not, then you'll level up at what amounts to milestones anyway. It's easier to streamline XP rules and leave them in there for those who want to use them than to take them out and force people who want them to homebrew XP rules.
3.) Armor as DR - I've been playing with this concept a lot of late in my 3.5 homebrew stuff, and I really see a lot of potential here. You have awesome tactical dilemmas like, "Do I take the hit to my speed and defense to gain better DR, or do I take the damage I get and have higher defenses and speed?
4.) Fewer classes, more builds. I really really liked that idea when mentioned by bone_naga. I like the idea of avengers being a paladin build, different specialist wizards being builds rather than special classes, runepriests (not Str-based) being a specific type of cleric, etc.
5.) ToB:BoNS-inspired Class/Power Interaction - I really like the idea that many different classes can pull from the same list. Not every class/build would gain access to every "school," but the powers don't make the class, the features make the class. Also, I like the idea of putting your utility stuff (stances) as something separate from your attacks. I'd even advocate separating out boosts into a third category so you don't have to sacrifice attacks for them. Finally, you can have schools to differentiate things like two-weapon fighting from great-weapon fighting, from sword and board from single weapon.
6.) Classes are about the features, not the powers. Simply put, a class, or a build for a class, is about the class features. This is especially easy if certain classes share pools of powers they can choose from. So the fighter becomes ABOUT his ability to lock people down, or his proficiency with armor, rather than powers X Y and Z.
7.) Power sources matter. Arcane power and martial power and psionic power...that all means something with respect to the mechanics, whether it's restricting damage types, or granting special abilities (cantrips or rituals, say for arcane, while martial characters might get something else).
8.) More interesting and fluid multiclassing. I'm not sure how I'd pull this off right yet...maybe schools of powers devoted to particular types of multiclass characters, or maybe class features designed specifically for multiclass characters. At any rate, I don't like giving up feats to multiclass, and I'd like multiclassing to be available early.
9.) Less cookie-cutter racial mechanics.
That's all I can think of off the top of my head. That's definitely enough for me to start brainstorming with....
Isn't that called HERO System or Gurps?
I don't know HERO system, but what I know from Gurps is that it relies heavily on simulating, which is something I wouldn't want. I would want a system even more gamist then D&D 4e, basically.
I kinda like the way Mutants&Masterminds does things, only I'd want to include more fluff and premade monsters and hints and tips on creating archetypes.
It's not like I would want to remove any of the D&D fluff, I just want to strip it from the mechanics. Instead of "This is a Fighter, this is a Wizard, this is a Cleric" I'd prefer "This is a bunch of powers, and here are some tips on how to use them to make a Fighter, Wizard or Cleric."
Isn't that called HERO System or Gurps?
I don't know HERO system, but what I know from Gurps is that it relies heavily on simulating, which is something I wouldn't want. I would want a system even more gamist then D&D 4e, basically.
I kinda like the way Mutants&Masterminds does things, only I'd want to include more fluff and premade monsters and hints and tips on creating archetypes.
It's not like I would want to remove any of the D&D fluff, I just want to strip it from the mechanics. Instead of "This is a Fighter, this is a Wizard, this is a Cleric" I'd prefer "This is a bunch of powers, and here are some tips on how to use them to make a Fighter, Wizard or Cleric."
ah. well this means you and i are on the same page in that respect.
Isn't that called HERO System or Gurps?
I don't know HERO system, but what I know from Gurps is that it relies heavily on simulating, which is something I wouldn't want. I would want a system even more gamist then D&D 4e, basically.
I kinda like the way Mutants&Masterminds does things, only I'd want to include more fluff and premade monsters and hints and tips on creating archetypes.
It's not like I would want to remove any of the D&D fluff, I just want to strip it from the mechanics. Instead of "This is a Fighter, this is a Wizard, this is a Cleric" I'd prefer "This is a bunch of powers, and here are some tips on how to use them to make a Fighter, Wizard or Cleric."
This is Savage Worlds.
The basic classes, races, and roles are necessary; they are the foundation upon which your character is built. The themes and racial modifiers and features help to define your character even further. Adding MCs to your character adds even more flavor. But you can't have any of those without the foundation, which are the classes, races, and roles.
Classless, Raceless, Roleless roleplaying games exist, and work just fine. None of them are a requirement for a game; although I agree they are a bit of a requirement to have something resembling D&D.
Isn't that called HERO System or Gurps?
I don't know HERO system, but what I know from Gurps is that it relies heavily on simulating, which is something I wouldn't want. I would want a system even more gamist then D&D 4e, basically.
I kinda like the way Mutants&Masterminds does things, only I'd want to include more fluff and premade monsters and hints and tips on creating archetypes.
It's not like I would want to remove any of the D&D fluff, I just want to strip it from the mechanics. Instead of "This is a Fighter, this is a Wizard, this is a Cleric" I'd prefer "This is a bunch of powers, and here are some tips on how to use them to make a Fighter, Wizard or Cleric."
GURPS is heavily into simulation, HERO is all about game mechanics (I haven't read M&M, but as I understand it M&M copied many of their ideas straight from HERO). IMHO HERO is superior to GURPS unless you want to play a "realistic" fantasy campaign.
In no paticular order
- No more +x items. They are always "mandatory" and should just be built into the system. 4e had a good step with no more +x stat items, but +x swords and armor needs to go too.
- No more XP. I like the encounter budget system from 4e, but the players don't need to care. Can include a variant rule saying "If you feel like giving xp, tell them how much went into the budget for each fight, and level them up every Z xp."
- 3e's class system.
- 4e's powers system, but make them useful and cool. Let them do things in and out of battle. X uses per day is fine, but should be at a minimum of 4 or so uses. Encounter powers are annoying. At will or daily only.
- 4e's Yes or no skill training.
- Drop the 1/2 level bit.
- 10 levels for each class. no upper level limit. (IE you can be a fighter 10, or a fighter 3/wizard 10/cleric 5) No dead levels anywhere.
- Vancian casting is not an option, you gain class features instead of powers. Fighters get lots of at wills, wizards get lots of dailies.
- With each class being smaller in levels, I want more classes. Main book needs 15+.
- A new campaign setting. Drop FR and Eberron and put something cool out.
- Race needs to matter, and each race can do each class. Something like each race getting skill bonuses, and a legit real combat altering power. No stat boosts for anyone. Maybe something like "Goblins can shift when missed by an attack". Something that makes it so people care about being a goblin at all levels.
- Alignment/dieties need to be totally distinct from mechanics.
- If a class is made in book A, it will not be referenced in Book B. No "Complete fighter" or " wizard powers" books. Instead splatbooks will throw out even more classes, races, or settings.
- Prestige classes are handled by just having more classes.
- I don't know if i would include feats or not. (My current 5e that I use to play games in does not have them in the traditional sense.)
4e's powers system, but make them useful and cool. Let them do things in and out of battle. X uses per day is fine, but should be at a minimum of 4 or so uses. Encounter powers are annoying. At will or daily only.
Can I ask you, what do you find annoying about Encounter powers? And, what do you find appealing about Daily powers?
I find Daily powers to be the aggravating ones, and Encounter powers work wonderfully.
4e's powers system, but make them useful and cool. Let them do things in and out of battle. X uses per day is fine, but should be at a minimum of 4 or so uses. Encounter powers are annoying. At will or daily only.
Can I ask you, what do you find annoying about Encounter powers? And, what do you find appealing about Daily powers?
I find Daily powers to be the aggravating ones, and Encounter powers work wonderfully.
yeah, I find this is a question for me too. I like the encounter powers, but find daily and at-will irritating.
at-will is irritating because it seems to stifle creative gameplay. The characters can do anything at-will, but the DM may need to adjudicate some rules about hwo to determine success, failure or degree thereof.
daily is irritating because it creates a troubling workday rest schedule. It gives the players an impression that they need to take an extended rest when the daily powers are exhausted. Also, encounters become a burden to build. the DM is in need of watching who has used daily powers and if those powers hit or missed.
i should say, the player expectation is that DMs should be watching that sort of thing to ensure the game is still fair and the story still plays out well. that might not mean, "in favor of the players and their PCs," but at least means, "the story should lead toward the accomplishment of the overall goal."
so, i'm also interested in the reasons you do not favor encounter powers.
I should have been a little more clear I guess. At will powers, are something I would get rid of, and instead I would just let people do things.
Mages with the magic missile spell can just shoot it whenever they feel like. Fighters with the bull rush power can just do it whenever they want. They don't say "I use my bull rush power" they say "I make an attack, and if it hits I have the option to push them one square". A minor change in terminology.
I like dailies for things like mages who can cast a spell. I can shoot my spells every so often. Daily powers for martial classes make less sense than encounter.
So martial classes get more at wills, and mages get more dailies. EX a fighter knows the disarm, trip, feint and bull rush maneuvers he can do them as often as he feels like. A mage knows magic missile, teleport, fireball and mage armor. Fireball and teleport are daily powers that can be used say 4 times a day each. Mage armor and magic missile can be used whenever the mage feels like it.
My biggest problem with encounter powers is the duration. How long exactly is an encounter? Sure if you read the book, or ask the DM he will say "The duration of a fight, or 5 min, but no more" but to a person sitting down to start a game, its not obvious. Plus that seems sort of arbitrary, doesn't it? How long does this last? "Eh, how about 5 min or so?".
It really doesn't fit with the feel the other two provide. At will powers revamped so they modify your basic attack feel like you are just doing something cool in addition to the basic. The daily feels like you are letting go with a big gun so to speak. The encounter is just "The first power i try to use every fight. and never out of one".
6. Get rid of the silly XP system. Require a set amount of XP per level. Perhaps 100XP each is good? Maybe 1000 if people want more flexibility in rewarding increments. Make it so that a Level 5 character defeating a level 8 encounter gets the same XP as a level 15 character defeating a level 18 encounter, as both should be the same relative difficulty.
The 4E system is exactly equal to your proposed system, just with the lookup table in a different step. In the current system the XP reward per monster and the amount of XP required to level double every 4 levels. By your proposed system, the XP required to level and the XP reward per monster would stay constant, but you would divide the XP provided by a monster in half if it was 4 levels lower than you, and double it if it was 4 levels higher.
The latter system may tickle your versimilitude bone because a 5th level monster provides a challenge to a 5th level character that is equal to what a 1st level monster provides a 1st level character, but I guarantee that you'll start muttering under your breath the third time you apply the fact that a lvl+1 monster is worth 114% and a lvl-1 is worth 87.5% the XP of an equal level monster while filling out an encounter, despite the fact that that's exactly what the relationship is right now in 4E, except its easy to deal with.
7. On the topic of "relative difficulty," make the differences in tiers descriptional, not mechanical. Don't give higher level characters access to mechanics that lower level characters don't have access to. Don't make the difference in levels twofold. Example:
Currently: At level 1, my Fighter dazed a goblin and my Sorcerer threw a small bolt of fire that dealt 25% of the goblin's hit points in damage in some ruins outside my home town. At level 30, my Fighter/Dreadnaught stunned an ancient dragon and my Sorcerer/Firelord dropped a huge bomb of flaming death that dealt damage equal to 35% of the HP of every enemy within 10' of the dragon in his ever-burning lair just inside the 9th circle of hell.
My goal: At level 1, my Fighter/Dreadnaught stunned a goblin and my Sorcerer/Firelord called forth a blast of fire that dealt damage equal to 25% of the HP of every enemy within 10' of the goblin in some ruins outside my home town. At level 30, my Fighter/Dreadnaught stunned an ancient dragon and my Sorcerer/Firelord called forth a blast of fire that dealt damage equal to 25% of the HP of every enemy within 10' of the dragon in his ever-burning lair just inside the 9th circle of hell.
In other words, make the game equally mechanically appealing at all "tiers," and make the sole difference the "feel." Make it so that the heroic battle against the bandit's captain is mechanically resolved in the exact same way that the epic battle against the evil god's incarnate champion is resolved, so the only difference is flavor. This way, I could safely run all my games in the lowest tier, since that is the "feel" my entire group prefers, without feeling cheated out of cool mechanics.
I think you'll have to stay disappointed about this forever, at least for D&D. The way we differentiate between low and high level is that higher level characters get cooler stuff, and usually more of it. The whole point of low level characters not having stun effects is because stun is a stronger form of action denial than daze (and daze is stronger action denial than stun). If you have a first level character dealing a 1d6+4 damage attack that stuns and a 30th level character dealing a 6d6+24 damage attack that stuns, but monsters have 6x the XP, then in a very real way you haven't leveled up at all because 30th level characters don't go around playing godzilla with 1st level monsters. The way we signal that you've leveled up is by giving you actively better toys, not just shinier ones.
6. Get rid of the silly XP system. Require a set amount of XP per level. Perhaps 100XP each is good? Maybe 1000 if people want more flexibility in rewarding increments. Make it so that a Level 5 character defeating a level 8 encounter gets the same XP as a level 15 character defeating a level 18 encounter, as both should be the same relative difficulty.
The 4E system is exactly equal to your proposed system, just with the lookup table in a different step. In the current system the XP reward per monster and the amount of XP required to level double every 4 levels. By your proposed system, the XP required to level and the XP reward per monster would stay constant, but you would divide the XP provided by a monster in half if it was 4 levels lower than you, and double it if it was 4 levels higher.
The latter system may tickle your versimilitude bone because a 5th level monster provides a challenge to a 5th level character that is equal to what a 1st level monster provides a 1st level character, but I guarantee that you'll start muttering under your breath the third time you apply the fact that a lvl+1 monster is worth 114% and a lvl-1 is worth 87.5% the XP of an equal level monster while filling out an encounter, despite the fact that that's exactly what the relationship is right now in 4E, except its easy to deal with.
No, I don't mean leveling from 5 to 6 would take 500 XP, I mean it would take 100 XP. And, leveling from 22 to 23 would take 100 XP. Or, actually, since you've determined it's 114%, 1000 XP works better.
This would be extremely easy because I wouldn't need to remember that a level+1 monster is worth 114%, I would need to know that a level+1 monster is worth 114 XP. It could be level 2, level 14, level 27, or any other level, and if it's level+1, it's worth 114XP. Likewise, the level-1 would be 87 XP. It'd be stupidly easy to set up the numbers to work right. Those aren't the real numbers, though, I don't think.
You would only need to know 11 numbers total, the XP for Level-5, through Level+5. Here, I'll do it right now (assuming each level takes 1000 XP):
Level-5 = 40XP, Level-4 = 50XP, Level-3 = 60XP, Level-2 = 70XP, Level-1 = 80XP, Level = 100 XP, Level+1 = 120XP, Level+2 = 140XP, Level+3 = 160XP, Level+4 = 200XP, Level+5 = 240XP.
Honestly, though, I don't use XP at all. I just have them level after every session or two. But, you can't write a rule book that says, "Just give your players a level whenever you feel like."
I think you'll have to stay disappointed about this forever, at least for D&D.
I know I will be.
The way we differentiate between low and high level is that higher level characters get cooler stuff, and usually more of it. The whole point of low level characters not having stun effects is because stun is a stronger form of action denial than daze (and daze is stronger action denial than stun).
Of course it is. But because it is action denial, and level does not affect how many actions you get, action denial scales perfectly already. Stunning a level 1 enemy denies that enemy his actions. Stunning a level 30 also denies that enemy his actions. There's no reason only high level PCs should get to stun enemies, because it has the same relative effect.
If you have a first level character dealing a 1d6+4 damage attack that stuns and a 30th level character dealing a 6d6+24 damage attack that stuns, but monsters have 6x the XP, then in a very real way you haven't leveled up at all because 30th level characters don't go around playing godzilla with 1st level monsters.
Yeah, that's kind of the point.
The way we signal that you've leveled up is by giving you actively better toys, not just shinier ones.
But there's no reason to give a 50 year old a different iPod than a 25 year old. An iPod has the same effect regardless of your age. Stunning has the same effect regardless of level.
The thing you're missing here, mp, is that people want their characters to get better in a real sense, not an imaginary sense.
I don't know, I learned to roleplay myself when I was 9 and everybody, save one player, that I've ever played with for any real amount of time were people that I taught how to roleplay. So, I guess I am missing that point. I've never seen anyone want that, and I don't really understand that desire. Here's why:
I don't want to roleplay a "zero who becomes a hero." I want to roleplay a "hero." I want to start a hero, I don't want to start a farmer. I want to be born special and be awesome from the start. I don't want to start sucking and then slowly become awesome, I want to start awesome, and continue awesome, and finish awesome.
Unfortunately, I also don't want to use the same 3 attacks for a year; I want to level so I can get new powers to play with.
My players, well, actually, they don't care about any of that. They just want to be part of a compelling story. They're actually more interested in their character's personal development than their mechanical development, or their journey from farmer to godslayer.
If that conflicts with your vision of DMing some sort of low magic game where nobody gets stronger, well... you should probably find a different system to play. 4e's pretty much specifically designed to make your life harder if you try and play that way.
4e is no more or less hard than any previous version of D&D. And it's not low magic I'm after. I actually use NO magic items at all. Zero. I am totally all about the players feeling awesome and being awesome all by themselves without outside help from "stuff." Actually, removing magic items and rituals, and not using fantastic monsters for the most part kind of takes care of the problem for me. Well, that and giving them a second Paragon Path at 21st instead of an Epic Destiny, since it wouldn't do for them to be dying and resurrecting once a day or whatever nonsense ED's frequently bring.
Anyway, I never said that what I want would necessarily appeal to anyone else. This was a question about what I would want, not how I would try to please as many people as possible. ;P
The thing you're missing here, mp, is that people want their characters to get better in a real sense, not an imaginary sense. If that conflicts with your vision of DMing some sort of low magic game where nobody gets stronger, well... you should probably find a different system to play. 4e's pretty much specifically designed to make your life harder if you try and play that way.
Characters in 4e do get better in a real sense. The DC that challenges them rises as they level because they are no longer challenged by simpler things. Just because the standard for what is challenging increases as you level, that doesn't mean that you don't continously get better when compared to things that are still at the level you were at when you began (e.g. a character that started at lvl 1 will continually get better when compared to a monster that challenged them at level one).
If you want characters to feel like they are getting better as they level, throw them up against traps/monsters/skill challenges that gave them a challenge a few levels ago.
Characters in 4e do get better in a real sense. The DC that challenges them rises as they level because they are no longer challenged by simpler things. Just because the standard for what is challenging increases as you level, that doesn't mean that you don't continously get better when compared to things that are still at the level you were at when you began (e.g. a character that started at lvl 1 will continually get better when compared to a monster that challenged them at level one).
If you want characters to feel like they are getting better as they level, throw them up against traps/monsters/skill challenges that gave them a challenge a few levels ago.
Well, he was talking about my position, in which what you describe does not happen. Real example from my most recent game:
The players were level 8. They fought some members of a secret criminal organization that is slowly going mad. The encounter was a challenge to them. After that session, they gained a level. While they made the changes to their characters, I went back and leveled up all the enemies I had prepared by one as well.
At level 9, they fought a similar encounter with the same enemies from before. The challenge of the fight stayed the same. It specifically did not get easier, because I, and my group, want it that way.
Characters in 4e do get better in a real sense. The DC that challenges them rises as they level because they are no longer challenged by simpler things. Just because the standard for what is challenging increases as you level, that doesn't mean that you don't continously get better when compared to things that are still at the level you were at when you began (e.g. a character that started at lvl 1 will continually get better when compared to a monster that challenged them at level one).
If you want characters to feel like they are getting better as they level, throw them up against traps/monsters/skill challenges that gave them a challenge a few levels ago.
Well, he was talking about my position, in which what you describe does not happen. Real example from my most recent game:
The players were level 8. They fought some members of a secret criminal organization that is slowly going mad. The encounter was a challenge to them. After that session, they gained a level. While they made the changes to their characters, I went back and leveled up all the enemies I had prepared by one as well.
At level 9, they fought a similar encounter with the same enemies from before. The challenge of the fight stayed the same. It specifically did not get easier, because I, and my group, want it that way.
Ah, that's simple. You're assuming the villains learn from their mistakes and better themselves between encounters with the PCs. So long as the enemies don't die, or can be brought back from the dead, it makes perfect sense to me. Not everyone would enjoy that, but I have levelled up major villains as PCs levelled so they could remain relevant until the story arc petered out.
Ah, that's simple. You're assuming the villains learn from their mistakes and better themselves between encounters with the PCs. So long as the enemies don't die, or can be brought back from the dead, it makes perfect sense to me. Not everyone would enjoy that, but I have levelled up major villains as PCs levelled so they could remain relevant until the story arc petered out.
Oh, no, I'm not actually doing that. I leveled up everything, not just major enemies. They didn't even face a major enemy, just some mooks from a cult.
When I design an encounter, I don't design it to be, say, a Level 10 encounter. I design it to be a Level+2 challenge. So, if the PC's gain a level, that means the enemies in that encounter need to level up, or else it will become a Level+1 challenge, and I really wanted a Level+2.
In my game, the characters do not descriptionally progress as they level. Their characters do not necessarily get "better" at anything. Level is a purely mechanical thing that only serves to give the players more mechanical options.
Ah, that's simple. You're assuming the villains learn from their mistakes and better themselves between encounters with the PCs. So long as the enemies don't die, or can be brought back from the dead, it makes perfect sense to me. Not everyone would enjoy that, but I have levelled up major villains as PCs levelled so they could remain relevant until the story arc petered out.
Oh, no, I'm not actually doing that. I leveled up everything, not just major enemies. They didn't even face a major enemy, just some mooks from a cult.
When I design an encounter, I don't design it to be, say, a Level 10 encounter. I design it to be a Level+2 challenge. So, if the PC's gain a level, that means the enemies in that encounter need to level up, or else it will become a Level+1 challenge, and I really wanted a Level+2.
In my game, the characters do not descriptionally progress as they level. Their characters do not necessarily get "better" at anything. Level is a purely mechanical thing that only serves to give the players more mechanical options.
I only used the major enemy thing as an example of how I have done a similar thing in the past. I get that you do it universally (or that's how it seems), so it creates a difference in perception.
Consider that a group who always faces the same challenge level never has a "normal" metric against which to measure themselves. The PCs get better, and so do their enemies, and because the challenge remains proportionally the same you never have to describe anyone as becoming more skilled. So perceptually, the characters never get "better" than their enemies, but they do mechanically get better than they were and gain more options as they level. If you want to fluff it as everyone mainting a consistent level of skill, that's great for you and your group, but that is fluff.