The Gaming Den

On another thread, K said:
"By removing 1st level class and PrC save bonuses(where 1st level just gives you a ginourmous save bonus), and changing save advancement to a Good 1 and Weak a .75 advancement, there'd be far less difference between good and bad saves."

I like this thinking, and I started out down that path. But when I looked at it, I said to myself:

"What happens if I extrapolate this progression 30, 40 or even 300 levels (not using any epic rules system)? Same thing, some charaters can't even save and some characters are completely immune."

Now in the rest of this discussion I will ignore the effects of ability modifiers, magic items and other misc. bonuses to simplify the discussion, they are problem I will address later.

So, anyway... then I said to myself:
"Suppose I want for a character with a good magic ability attacking a character with a good magic defense to succeed only 50% of the time, as long as the levels are equal, how would I do that? Simple, the relevant stats must progress at the same rate, +1 per level. Now, what if I wat that same good magic character to suceed against a POOR magic defender 70% of the time, regardless of level? Same thing, the relevant stat must progress at +1 per level for both characters, but the defender starts out with a disadvantage that sticks with him the rest of his career."

Ergo, I have abolished the Gigaxian sacred cow of different progression tables for different characters and simply stated that all characters progress at +1 to all relevant stats every level, but some characters start with deficiencies or bonuses in the stats depending on the kind of character the player wishes to play.

Oversimplified? Boring? Unseen ramifications? Discuss.

It's not a bad system, of course your main problems that I can see are.

-Ability score mods (assuming you keep them) will still create deviations because you spend your money on your better scores and screw the weaker ones, or grant them less bonuses.

-Multiclassing. I'm not quite sure how you would define what the penalty is. If there's a -4 penalty for instance for being poor in a save, you'd have to somehow create some weird relationship where the number of levels in which classes you have somehow determines what your bonus or penalty is. Which is really tough, because theoretically taht has to change. If you have 4 levels in wizard to start you'd have no will penalty, but if you then picked up 7 fighter levels, you'd have to take a penalty, like a -2 or so, and that might be a tough system to implement, though not impossible.

But otherwise I think you're on the right track here, in that things have to stay more or less balanced to keep things even. I wonder if we could do the same for BaB too?

Of course the same thing could be done for BAB, but you'd scrap armor Defense bonuses and make it a level-dependent stat. Armor would give DR instead. As for your other 2 grievances:

1. Yes, I know, the rift shall grow when PCs start taking feats/magic items/ability score enhancers. The way to limit this though, might be to have special level-dependent benefits that allow you to use your best ability score on different stats.

2. Hell, I'm scrapping classes altogether so that's not a problem. If you want to keep classes that you do is the following:

1. Ignore class BAB and Save progression.
2. Give the following choices to 1st level characters:

BAB:
Good: +1
Medium: -1
Bad -3

Defense:
Ditto

Magic DCs:
Ditto

Will Save:
Ditto

Fort Save:
Ditto

Reflex Save:
Ditto

For every good choice they take, they have to take a bad choice. Or they can leave them all at medium.

For HD, SP, class skills, feats, class abilities, caster levels etc... just use the class as usual.

Oh, also suggest that you calculate magic DCs like this:
10+Relevant MOD+Magic DCs.

That way you can have a Ftr19/Wiz1 that casts Color Spray with a DC of 30+ but fights with only a +16 BAB.

Epic progressions have to go. In the normal level game, the illusion where the monster is always within 3-4 levels of you is fine, but once you're at level 60 and the monster is within 3-4 levels, the game gets really tired and unbelievable.

Post 20, there's no reason for any stat to increase. You can just cap any bonus from one class at the level 20 bonus, and multiclassers can use their best cap. So a Wiz 20 has a cap of 10 for BAB, and a Wiz 20/Fighter 1 has a cap of 20.

People can still gain level appropriate feats and class abilities(not spellcasting progressions or the like), but trying to play stat catch-up is a bookkeeping nightmare.

Epic progressions have to go. In the normal level game, the illusion where the monster is always within 3-4 levels of you is fine, but once you're at level 60 and the monster is within 3-4 levels, the game gets really tired and unbelievable.

And replace it with...?

Post 20, there's no reason for any stat to increase. You can just cap any bonus from one class at the level 20 bonus, and multiclassers can use their best cap. So a Wiz 20 has a cap of 10 for BAB, and a Wiz 20/Fighter 1 has a cap of 20.

** GURVE **

rapanui at [unixtime wrote:1093323475[/unixtime]]Ergo, I have abolished the Gigaxian sacred cow of different progression tables for different characters and simply stated that all characters progress at +1 to all relevant stats every level, but some characters start with deficiencies or bonuses in the stats depending on the kind of character the player wishes to play.

Oversimplified? Boring? Unseen ramifications? Discuss.

Two things.

First, early levels are going to suck hard. Right now, the 3.5 theory is at 1st level nobody's not too much worse at anything, so you have a chance to do stuff. Wizards don't have good spells, but they're BAB is only 1 behind Fighter. And so on.

This now makes wizards sucky at spells, and sucky at fighting. First few levels are going to be haaaarrrrrrd.

Second, your progression is going to really suck for fighters. At L20, a wizard BAB would be 17 (if I read that right), a fighter 20. Why be a fighter? You'll need to really amp up other fighter abitilities, which seems like a lot of work.

Third, saves aren't very different at high levels, but are radically different at low levels. It makes little difference whether you save against strong or poor at L20, it's a 20% difference. But at 1st level, it's a 400% difference. Or not, my math sucks today, but it's enormous.

Instead of a huge negative at 1st level, I'd have a smaller negative at 1st, 4th, 8th, 12th, and 13th.

The_Hanged_Man at [unixtime wrote:1093371629[/unixtime]]
Instead of a huge negative at 1st level, I'd have a smaller negative at 1st, 4th, 8th, 12th, and 13th.

Why? If you want a 20% gap between good and bad saves, then it should remain that way the entire time.

Second, your progression is going to really suck for fighters. At L20, a wizard BAB would be 17 (if I read that right), a fighter 20. Why be a fighter? You'll need to really amp up other fighter abitilities, which seems like a lot of work.

Right now at level 1 fighters are only 1 behind wizards in BaB. If it's ok at first level, I don't see why it isn't ok later in level. Why do you have to go from decent at combat to total suck later on?

I like the concept of this idea. You pick the gap between good and bad, and you try to keep it that way, instead of constantly widening it. If a wizard is 20% more likely to miss than a fighter, then we should keep it that way at all levels.

Right now at level 1 fighters are only 1 behind wizards in BaB. If it's ok at first level, I don't see why it isn't ok later in level. Why do you have to go from decent at combat to total suck later on?

Being 'good' at something because the standards are so low and characters are so unidentifiable from each other is supposed to be a positive thing? WTF?

Further, it's because the wizard's other set of abilities (the spells) are supposed to be not big enough to make a difference on its own (but it does, if you stay away from crap like magic missile and acid arrow). But the idea was that wizards would have to sometimes pick up a crossbow and add arrow support. By the time their spells got big enough to affect combat, it got phased out.

It'd be like Rydia in FF4. Once she got a sweet set of calling magic and black magic, they phased out her white magic. Giving her an ADVANCING set of white magic, too, would make her the best character in the game.

Which is totally stupid, and it is what the proposed system does. Unless you plan to give fighters all of the wizard's spells, it is not going to work. At all.

At that point, pick a number and roll a percent die based on your class. Everyone has the same to-hit, but wizards hit 20% less, so they roll a d100 and if within the 20%, they miss.

Wait wait, am I reading this wrong, or would a fighter 8 / wizard 1 / cleric 1 have a WORSE BAB than a fighter 8 / wizard 2?

Lago_AM3P at [unixtime wrote:1093378457[/unixtime]]
Further, it's because the wizard's other set of abilities (the spells) are supposed to be not big enough to make a difference on its own (but it does, if you stay away from crap like magic missile and acid arrow). But the idea was that wizards would have to sometimes pick up a crossbow and add arrow support. By the time their spells got big enough to affect combat, it got phased out.

Phasing people out blows, because it means you can't multiclass. Why can't you be a fighter 10/wiz 10, it's because the system "phases out" anyone who doesn't specialize. Well you took 10 levels that aren't wizard, so your magic is phased out, and you took 10 levels of low BaB so your fighting is phased out.

That just sucks. It's why they end up creating PrCs like eldritch knight that don't phase anyone out and keep up both levels of skill, which everyone then immediately jumps on as being broken because it's so much more effective than a standard multiclass mix.

If we want people to be able to multiclass, then they can't get phased out. It's bas enough trying to keep several ability scores competetive, but to get shafted on BaB and your other stats just sucks.

That just sucks. It's why they end up creating PrCs like eldritch knight that don't phase anyone out and keep up both levels of skill, which everyone then immediately jumps on as being broken because it's so much more effective than a standard multiclass mix.

So why can we not just make more PrCs?

Or more classes. Or whatever.

RandomCasualty at [unixtime wrote:1093377102[/unixtime]]

The_Hanged_Man at [unixtime wrote:1093371629[/unixtime]]
Instead of a huge negative at 1st level, I'd have a smaller negative at 1st, 4th, 8th, 12th, and 13th.

Why? If you want a 20% gap between good and bad saves, then it should remain that way the entire time.

Because "20%" doesn't mean the same thing at first level as at 20th level. It just does. That's why Greater Heroism gives a bigger bonus than Heroism. When everybody's got a +5 sword and 36 strength, an extra +1 of BAB loses some oomph.

In a radically different system, where nothing scales at more than 1 or so, but everything scales at 1 or so, it might be OK, but I've never seen that system. OR heard of it. And that system has other scaling issues, such as a horde of beggers being as tough as an epic fighter.

That's a fine way to go, but it's not at all like 3.5.

Uh, maybe I sould clarify a little bit here with a few examples. You don't get caster levels from being a fighter, but you do get added DC to your spells.

Suppose you have a Ftr19/Wiz1 with a Good BAB, and a Bad Magic DC stat.

That character (level 20) has a BAB of +20, and DCs of 10+16+INT, but only first level spells that act as if cast by a 1st level caster. He also has all the fighter bonus feats (which hopefully the DM has improved to give the fighter class some more oomph). Oh, and all saves at 18+MOD

Now, let's take the reverse.

A Wiz19/Ftr1. This time I choose a Good Magic DC and a Bad BAB.
This character has 9th level spells cast as a 19th level wizard, with a DC of 10+20+INT. His attacks are at +16 BAB but he's not good for melee because he lacks all the nifty fighter feats and the HP to stick around in combat for long. His saving throws are the same as the other guy.

Following?

EDIT: I should mention that I haven't tested this system under Core Rules and I'm just trying to get an opinion on the idea of constant improvements with starting skewed stats.

I think you need to take into account that a constant bonus doesn't have constant effects. I'm not that great at the math, so I could be totally wrong here, but this is how I see it.

AC doesn't scale the same as to hit. It scales OK w/ BAB (maybe - it's at least in the ballpark), but to hit climbs much faster. So effectively, you need to penalize the non-fhgting classes more as level advances.

Some common monster examples:

OGre, CR3, AC 16
Hill Giant, CR7, AC20
Storm Giant, CR13, AC 27.

With +1 BAB, and assuming level=CR, you hit an ogre on a 13, a Hill Giant on a 13, and a STorm Giant on a 14. Not bad, w/ just BAB.

But say you're a cleric w/ fighter BAB. At 13th level, you have Divine Might at +4 to hit, GMW at +3 to hit, and probably a +4 strength item or spell or something. SO, you have another +9 or so to hit, w/o getting fancy, at 13th level. At 3rd level, you would only have DM at +1, maybe a masterwork weapon, maybe a +2 strength item, or +3 to hit.

So, at 3rd level you effectively need a 10 to hit even-CR ogres. At 13th level, you effectively need a 5 to hit even-CR giants. At cleric BAB, you're still doing much better at 13th than 3rd. Iterative attacks make up for this a little, but not much.

* * *

If you have BAB scale the way you're planning, you need to have the fighter keep up with that. That's hard to do, if you have a constant modifier. In 3.5, you have Greater Weapon Focus, a few other feats, and magic weapons.

To do it, you need to either have spells that don't scale, or fighter feats that do scale, the same as spells. That's radically different than 3.5. I might like that system better, but I'm not sure how to analyze it in a vacuum.

* * *

Rapa, how are your feats going to make up for -4 BAB and full spell progression? Even uber broken feats generally don't make up for a caster level. What are your ideas to amp up fighter feats?

Are you going to get rid of iterative attacks? That might help.

The_Hanged_Man at [unixtime wrote:1093382686[/unixtime]]
Because "20%" doesn't mean the same thing at first level as at 20th level. It just does. That's why Greater Heroism gives a bigger bonus than Heroism. When everybody's got a +5 sword and 36 strength, an extra +1 of BAB loses some oomph.

This is the odd attitude that leads to the power gap that rapanui is trying to fix. Any given +1 is no less significant or more significant regardless of level. And it doesn't matter where most of your other bonuses come from so long as it's even.

When you try the paradigm that "bonuses get bigger", you gradually pigeon hole everyone into the same concept. In rapa's system for instance, you can be short a +1 bonus and it's just a +1 bonus, or 5% gap. In the standard system, you can be short a +1 bonus, but that turns into a +2, a +3, all the way to a +5. Pretty soon you're in the hole 25%, so you better damn well get ahold of that bonus or you're screwed.

And that leads to power being off when you extrapolate it to epic levels. You end up with a scenario where everyone needs every scaling bonus and needs them more as they gain levels. So you end up saying "well why not give it to everyone?" and finally end up saying "why not eliminate it altogether?"

You've basically got 2 choices:
a) Numbers get bigger and your die type gets bigger (in other words, you roll 1d20, 1d30, 2d20, etc. as you get higher in level)
b) The idea that numbers have to be dramatically bigger at high levels has to go.

Constant bonus systems can work, but they essentially can't have character developement. Which is to say, that your class at first level is going to be your class at 14th level - your knight will never become a "fire knight" or an "eldritch knight" - he'll be a regular knight. Forever.

That's fine, for some purposes. You provide enough classes that everyone can start out as whatever it is that they want to be, and then they get generally better from there. But that's it. You can't develope magical powers, and your merchant can't learn to be a swordsman.

It would be just like old school D&D. You get on the rails at first level, and then you never ever get off. If you want some variety in your character you don't have your character develope a new skill - you start a new character. Such systems work really well for pick up games and computer games and have been in use since the late sixties.

-Username17

Well, you could just have a system where you can shift around your strengths/weaknesses every level, or maybe a feat which improves one of your abilities by one level. Iron will for instance, could just bump up your will save from a poor to a medium or medium to good. You could have a similar abiltiy for BaB or magic DCs.

No. You can't. You can't add new abilties in a constant bonus system, because then you don't have a constant bonus system anymore. If you have selectable abilities at level three then you are introducing additional disparity between characters. If you weren't OK with that additional disparity at first level, you aren't OK with it ever, so you can't do it.

-Username17

Well, you still have class abiltiies and ability modifiers, which create some degree of disparity, so it isn't totally equal, but I don't think you can get away from those two, without totally simplifying the system.

But it's relatively analogous that a fighter's feats, a cleric's buff spells and a wizard's general spells should hopefully even out.

You obviously cant' get rid of disparity totally. But you can get rid of some unneccessary class theory where we feel the need to totally phase out some guy in something, whether it's wizardry or fighting, just because he took 5 levels in something else. And if he happened to split 5 levels between two classes, well then he's just hosed.

There's going to be some disparity for any system, unless you want to say PCs don't have ability scores and are purely a class with abilities, then we could ensure a perfect balance. But right now there's too many variables to actually make an ironclad even bonus system. But that isn't to say your basic class system can't use that premise and still add some stability to the system.

"No. You can't. You can't add new abilties in a constant bonus system, because then you don't have a constant bonus system anymore. If you have selectable abilities at level three then you are introducing additional disparity between characters. If you weren't OK with that additional disparity at first level, you aren't OK with it ever, so you can't do it."

Not necessarily. Suppose there's a feat that lets you change one of your stats and improve it by one step. The feat might say that Good is the maximum, and then no imbalances would be introduced in the characters, because you just spent a feat improving your Will, while anothe character got a fighting feat or a magic power feat.

I guess it isn't really a constant bonus system, it's more of a Mostly Constant Bonus System With Occassional Shifts To Allow For Roleplaying (MCBSWOSTAFR???). But these shifts would still be controlled and have a maximum cap.

Hell, something like maximum stat bonus caps (based on level) might even work for Core D&D, taking some of the oomph out of min/maxing.

"You can't develope magical powers, and your merchant can't learn to be a swordsman."

I beg to differ. The classless system I am working on has a Character Base much like what has been discussed above and allows for full transformation, development, and growth of characters.

Just consider the multiclassed characters above and see how much better they are compared to their equivalents by the Core rules. At least the Ftr19/Wiz1 has a chance his color spray will work.

Just consider the multiclassed characters above and see how much better they are compared to their equivalents by the Core rules. At least the Ftr19/Wiz1 has a chance his color spray will work.

Uh, maybe I sould clarify a little bit here with a few examples. You don't get caster levels from being a fighter, but you do get added DC to your spells.

So what are you going to do about more spells per day and caster levels?

Otherwise, this is the same damn system except that for some reason a fighter can totally destroy his BAB and saves way worse than he did in the original game for the 'privilege' of being able to cast a grease and color spray that people may or may not (likely) care about. Whee.

So you're thinking of a system in which everyone starts good in some areas and bad in others and gradually they all become completely identical because they can improve their bad abilities but can't improve their good ones and when scaled up sufficiently all characters are indistinguishable except by character backgrounds?

-Username17

FrankTrollman at [unixtime wrote:1093404974[/unixtime]]So you're thinking of a system in which everyone starts good in some areas and bad in others and gradually they all become completely identical because they can improve their bad abilities but can't improve their good ones and when scaled up sufficiently all characters are indistinguishable except by character backgrounds?

Well, remember that fighters are going to have lots of feats still, and it'll take a couple feats for a wizard to raise his BaB to the level of a fighter (or maybe not at all if you make it so he can take it only once), and that's not really a problem, so you honestly don't care much.

Really, balancing the cleric I think is the biggest concern under this system. Because you can theoretically take poor save DCs and use only buffs, healing and non-combat spells and never actually suffer any penalty for the save DCs. Meanwhile you've got the full fighting ability of a fighter and only d8 hit points.

And that's one area I'm not sure how you deal with under this otherwise sound system. I'm thinking you need another magic catagory of some kind to keep control of magic users and give non-casters a bit more of an edge numerically.

[Huge Edit, because I realize that I don't understand the system.]