Level based to-hit bonus - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Level based to-hit bonus

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
Salamandyr2000
Feb 22, 2010 16:36:48 One change I'm considering for my next campaign is re-figuring the way attack bonus is considered. The way we currently do it rewards specialization to too great a degree. That's fine, as far as it goes, but that means players who prefer generalists, or nonstandard builds, and classes with 2 primary attributes are left in the dust. And of course, there are the feat taxe issues, with expertise and melee training, which just add another layer of specialization on top.

So instead, enhancement bonuses and attributes only apply to damage. Expertise is gone. Each player has a general attack bonuse equal to

3+level=attack bonus

All other situational modifiers still apply, proficiency bonuses for weapon attacks, class bonuses, situational feat bonuses like nimble blades, powers. Everything but attribute and enhancement bonus. This comes out to pretty much exactly what a character would have if he started with an 18 in his primary attack attribute and took a expertise at around 5th level.

This change would open up game space for non-synergized hybrids like fighter/wizards, Y shaped classes that want to dabble in both sides of their powers like balanced paladins and Starpact Warlocks, and class/race combinations that don't share primary stats, like tieflings and fighters.

A character who specializes still does the most damage, but by making the t the most important property (to-hit) at the table a standardized number, any build can contribute without worrying that they will sit at the table and whiff all night.

PEACH
#2
pluisjen
Feb 23, 2010 4:51:08 I see no problems with this. If your players agree, go for it.
#3
lhockee
Feb 23, 2010 13:09:41
This is the exact same houserule I've been using since D&D4E came out; it's opened up a lot of doors for player concepts, since the need to specialize no longer applies across the board. As you say; those who specialize will always been a tad better then those who do not, but for those who have no interest in specialization, they do not suffer because of that choice. Near-balanced to-hit around the board is what D&D4E should have started like, in my opinion of course.

I've had no issues with this houserule since I installed it in the core mechanics, so I see no reason why you would have any either; barring a munchkin or powergamer perhaps. But those situations are easy enough to rectify.
#4
Neutronium_Dragon
Feb 24, 2010 15:39:46 I've been considering doing the same with defenses as well as attacks - implementing this for Fort/Ref/Will seems to be easy enough, though AC is more complicated due to the heavy-vs-light differences - on the other hand, AC generally doesn't have the same scaling issues (or is easier to cover for) that NADs do, so it might not be necessary to change it.
#5
super_rats
Feb 24, 2010 16:31:06 I need to remember this idea. It's a level of change I wouldn't want to introduce mid-campaign, but I really do like the idea a lot.
#6
mellored
Feb 24, 2010 18:06:30 Now i kinda wanna make a warlord with 10 Str, 18 Int and 18 Cha...
#7
inconsistentdm
Feb 25, 2010 23:22:01 Thank you so much, I have been fiddling with trying to get the math right FOR JUST THIS REASON! you have saved me a lot of headache figuring this out. TY
#8
blacksheepcannibal
Feb 28, 2010 16:47:56 I have been fiddling with the math quite a bit trying to get this to equal out; I have come to a few core assumptions, and I think I have found the best way of getting this to be on par with RAW bonuses.

Assumption 1: A player will start with an 18 (after racial bonuses) in his to-hit stat. He will improve that stat at every possibly opportunity. This gives an opening bonus of +4 @ 1st level, with an improvement at levels 8, 14, 21, and 28.

Assumption 2: Starting at level 3, a player will have a magic weapon or implement that is two levels higher than himself. That is, a level 14 player will likely have a level 16 magic weapon. I feel that it is reasonably safe to assume that a player starting at level 1 with no magic items may not gain any enhancement bonus to attack until level 3.

Assumption 3: A player, given the option, will take the appropriate weapon/implement expertise feat.

Using these assumptions, we have a discernible, predictable, to-hit bonus rising from +5 at first level, to +32 at max level. We shall call this "Standardized Core Attack Bonus" or "SCAB". We can compare this against other systems in one of two ways.

Comparison 1: The mode of all the differences across all levels.

Comparison 2: The average of all the differences across all levels.

Given that we have a way of getting results, and comparing these results, we can look at differing methods of figuring attack bonuses.

Alternate Method 1: Attack bonus = 3 + level. This yields a bonus ranging from +4 at 1st level to +33 at max level. Result: This method yields a Mode of 0; the Average, however, is -0.26. This method would lag behind the attack bonus of a RAW character significantly (especially in the heroic and paragon tier).

Alternate Method 2: Attack bonus = 4 + level. This yields a bonus ranging from +5 at 1st level to +34 at max level. Result: This method yields a Mode of 1, with an average of .73. This method would give consistently better attack bonuses than a RAW character (especially in the paragon and heroic tiers).

Alternate Method 3: A stepped method, starting at (Attack bonus = 4 + level) until level 15, when it becomes (Attack bonus = 3 + level) until level 25, when it becomes (Attack bonus = 2 + level). (Note: this follows Method 2 with the exception of a -1 penalty starting at level 15, becoming a -2 penalty starting at level 25.) Result: This method yields a Mode of 0, with an average of 0. This method parallels the SCAB prediction very closely.

I feel that Method 3 is the best way to use a level-based to-hit bonus.
#9
Salamandyr2000
Feb 28, 2010 21:57:31
I have been fiddling with the math quite a bit trying to get this to equal out; I have come to a few core assumptions, and I think I have found the best way of getting this to be on par with RAW bonuses.

Assumption 1: A player will start with an 18 (after racial bonuses) in his to-hit stat. He will improve that stat at every possibly opportunity. This gives an opening bonus of +4 @ 1st level, with an improvement at levels 8, 14, 21, and 28.

Assumption 2: Starting at level 3, a player will have a magic weapon or implement that is two levels higher than himself. That is, a level 14 player will likely have a level 16 magic weapon. I feel that it is reasonably safe to assume that a player starting at level 1 with no magic items may not gain any enhancement bonus to attack until level 3.

Assumption 3: A player, given the option, will take the appropriate weapon/implement expertise feat.

Using these assumptions, we have a discernible, predictable, to-hit bonus rising from +5 at first level, to +32 at max level. We shall call this "Standardized Core Attack Bonus" or "SCAB". We can compare this against other systems in one of two ways.

Comparison 1: The mode of all the differences across all levels.

Comparison 2: The average of all the differences across all levels.

Given that we have a way of getting results, and comparing these results, we can look at differing methods of figuring attack bonuses.

Alternate Method 1: Attack bonus = 3 + level. This yields a bonus ranging from +4 at 1st level to +33 at max level. Result: This method yields a Mode of 0; the Average, however, is -0.26. This method would lag behind the attack bonus of a RAW character significantly (especially in the heroic and paragon tier).

Alternate Method 2: Attack bonus = 4 + level. This yields a bonus ranging from +5 at 1st level to +34 at max level. Result: This method yields a Mode of 1, with an average of .73. This method would give consistently better attack bonuses than a RAW character (especially in the paragon and heroic tiers).

Alternate Method 3: A stepped method, starting at (Attack bonus = 4 + level) until level 15, when it becomes (Attack bonus = 3 + level) until level 25, when it becomes (Attack bonus = 2 + level). (Note: this follows Method 2 with the exception of a -1 penalty starting at level 15, becoming a -2 penalty starting at level 25.) Result: This method yields a Mode of 0, with an average of 0. This method parallels the SCAB prediction very closely.

I feel that Method 3 is the best way to use a level-based to-hit bonus.

Blacksheep, I believe you are comparing implement numbers (the 33 you mentioned), with weapon based attacks. Proficiency bonuses (as well as class, and feat bonus) are still added. At 30th level +33 is exactly equal to what a RAW who takes Demigod would have for an implement based attack
(+15 half level, +9 for attribute, +6 enhancement, +3 expertise).

At level 10, a RAW character (with +2 implement & expertise) would have +13 to attack, +14 with an axe, +16 with longsword

At level 10, by my method, he would have +13 attack, +15 with axe, or +16 with longsword

At level 20, the RAW (with +5 implement & expertise) would have +23, 25, or 26

At level 20, by my method, he would have exactly the same numbers.

The difference between rules as written and 3+level may vary by 1, depending on the quality of magical weapon the RAW the character is using. Otherwise, it's exactly the same.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Salamandyr2000 Feb 22, 2010 16:36:48	One change I'm considering for my next campaign is re-figuring the way attack bonus is considered. The way we currently do it rewards specialization to too great a degree. That's fine, as far as it goes, but that means players who prefer generalists, or nonstandard builds, and classes with 2 primary attributes are left in the dust. And of course, there are the feat taxe issues, with expertise and melee training, which just add another layer of specialization on top. So instead, enhancement bonuses and attributes only apply to damage. Expertise is gone. Each player has a general attack bonuse equal to 3+level=attack bonus All other situational modifiers still apply, proficiency bonuses for weapon attacks, class bonuses, situational feat bonuses like nimble blades, powers. Everything but attribute and enhancement bonus. This comes out to pretty much exactly what a character would have if he started with an 18 in his primary attack attribute and took a expertise at around 5th level. This change would open up game space for non-synergized hybrids like fighter/wizards, Y shaped classes that want to dabble in both sides of their powers like balanced paladins and Starpact Warlocks, and class/race combinations that don't share primary stats, like tieflings and fighters. A character who specializes still does the most damage, but by making the t the most important property (to-hit) at the table a standardized number, any build can contribute without worrying that they will sit at the table and whiff all night. PEACH
#2 pluisjen Feb 23, 2010 4:51:08	I see no problems with this. If your players agree, go for it.
#3 lhockee Feb 23, 2010 13:09:41	This is the exact same houserule I've been using since D&D4E came out; it's opened up a lot of doors for player concepts, since the need to specialize no longer applies across the board. As you say; those who specialize will always been a tad better then those who do not, but for those who have no interest in specialization, they do not suffer because of that choice. Near-balanced to-hit around the board is what D&D4E should have started like, in my opinion of course. I've had no issues with this houserule since I installed it in the core mechanics, so I see no reason why you would have any either; barring a munchkin or powergamer perhaps. But those situations are easy enough to rectify.
#4 Neutronium_Dragon Feb 24, 2010 15:39:46	I've been considering doing the same with defenses as well as attacks - implementing this for Fort/Ref/Will seems to be easy enough, though AC is more complicated due to the heavy-vs-light differences - on the other hand, AC generally doesn't have the same scaling issues (or is easier to cover for) that NADs do, so it might not be necessary to change it.
#5 super_rats Feb 24, 2010 16:31:06	I need to remember this idea. It's a level of change I wouldn't want to introduce mid-campaign, but I really do like the idea a lot.
#6 mellored Feb 24, 2010 18:06:30	Now i kinda wanna make a warlord with 10 Str, 18 Int and 18 Cha...
#7 inconsistentdm Feb 25, 2010 23:22:01	Thank you so much, I have been fiddling with trying to get the math right FOR JUST THIS REASON! you have saved me a lot of headache figuring this out. TY
#8 blacksheepcannibal Feb 28, 2010 16:47:56	I have been fiddling with the math quite a bit trying to get this to equal out; I have come to a few core assumptions, and I think I have found the best way of getting this to be on par with RAW bonuses. Assumption 1: A player will start with an 18 (after racial bonuses) in his to-hit stat. He will improve that stat at every possibly opportunity. This gives an opening bonus of +4 @ 1st level, with an improvement at levels 8, 14, 21, and 28. Assumption 2: Starting at level 3, a player will have a magic weapon or implement that is two levels higher than himself. That is, a level 14 player will likely have a level 16 magic weapon. I feel that it is reasonably safe to assume that a player starting at level 1 with no magic items may not gain any enhancement bonus to attack until level 3. Assumption 3: A player, given the option, will take the appropriate weapon/implement expertise feat. Using these assumptions, we have a discernible, predictable, to-hit bonus rising from +5 at first level, to +32 at max level. We shall call this "Standardized Core Attack Bonus" or "SCAB". We can compare this against other systems in one of two ways. Comparison 1: The mode of all the differences across all levels. Comparison 2: The average of all the differences across all levels. Given that we have a way of getting results, and comparing these results, we can look at differing methods of figuring attack bonuses. Alternate Method 1: Attack bonus = 3 + level. This yields a bonus ranging from +4 at 1st level to +33 at max level. Result: This method yields a Mode of 0; the Average, however, is -0.26. This method would lag behind the attack bonus of a RAW character significantly (especially in the heroic and paragon tier). Alternate Method 2: Attack bonus = 4 + level. This yields a bonus ranging from +5 at 1st level to +34 at max level. Result: This method yields a Mode of 1, with an average of .73. This method would give consistently better attack bonuses than a RAW character (especially in the paragon and heroic tiers). Alternate Method 3: A stepped method, starting at (Attack bonus = 4 + level) until level 15, when it becomes (Attack bonus = 3 + level) until level 25, when it becomes (Attack bonus = 2 + level). (Note: this follows Method 2 with the exception of a -1 penalty starting at level 15, becoming a -2 penalty starting at level 25.) Result: This method yields a Mode of 0, with an average of 0. This method parallels the SCAB prediction very closely. I feel that Method 3 is the best way to use a level-based to-hit bonus.
#9 Salamandyr2000 Feb 28, 2010 21:57:31	I have been fiddling with the math quite a bit trying to get this to equal out; I have come to a few core assumptions, and I think I have found the best way of getting this to be on par with RAW bonuses. Assumption 1: A player will start with an 18 (after racial bonuses) in his to-hit stat. He will improve that stat at every possibly opportunity. This gives an opening bonus of +4 @ 1st level, with an improvement at levels 8, 14, 21, and 28. Assumption 2: Starting at level 3, a player will have a magic weapon or implement that is two levels higher than himself. That is, a level 14 player will likely have a level 16 magic weapon. I feel that it is reasonably safe to assume that a player starting at level 1 with no magic items may not gain any enhancement bonus to attack until level 3. Assumption 3: A player, given the option, will take the appropriate weapon/implement expertise feat. Using these assumptions, we have a discernible, predictable, to-hit bonus rising from +5 at first level, to +32 at max level. We shall call this "Standardized Core Attack Bonus" or "SCAB". We can compare this against other systems in one of two ways. Comparison 1: The mode of all the differences across all levels. Comparison 2: The average of all the differences across all levels. Given that we have a way of getting results, and comparing these results, we can look at differing methods of figuring attack bonuses. Alternate Method 1: Attack bonus = 3 + level. This yields a bonus ranging from +4 at 1st level to +33 at max level. Result: This method yields a Mode of 0; the Average, however, is -0.26. This method would lag behind the attack bonus of a RAW character significantly (especially in the heroic and paragon tier). Alternate Method 2: Attack bonus = 4 + level. This yields a bonus ranging from +5 at 1st level to +34 at max level. Result: This method yields a Mode of 1, with an average of .73. This method would give consistently better attack bonuses than a RAW character (especially in the paragon and heroic tiers). Alternate Method 3: A stepped method, starting at (Attack bonus = 4 + level) until level 15, when it becomes (Attack bonus = 3 + level) until level 25, when it becomes (Attack bonus = 2 + level). (Note: this follows Method 2 with the exception of a -1 penalty starting at level 15, becoming a -2 penalty starting at level 25.) Result: This method yields a Mode of 0, with an average of 0. This method parallels the SCAB prediction very closely. I feel that Method 3 is the best way to use a level-based to-hit bonus. Blacksheep, I believe you are comparing implement numbers (the 33 you mentioned), with weapon based attacks. Proficiency bonuses (as well as class, and feat bonus) are still added. At 30th level +33 is exactly equal to what a RAW who takes Demigod would have for an implement based attack (+15 half level, +9 for attribute, +6 enhancement, +3 expertise). At level 10, a RAW character (with +2 implement & expertise) would have +13 to attack, +14 with an axe, +16 with longsword At level 10, by my method, he would have +13 attack, +15 with axe, or +16 with longsword At level 20, the RAW (with +5 implement & expertise) would have +23, 25, or 26 At level 20, by my method, he would have exactly the same numbers. The difference between rules as written and 3+level may vary by 1, depending on the quality of magical weapon the RAW the character is using. Otherwise, it's exactly the same.