Bring Back (Some of) the 1/2 Level Bonus

4e scaling was too rapid.  You were expected to increase at everything at a rate of ~+1 per level.  This was accomplished through the 1/2 level bonus, feats, magical equipment, and ability score increases. Sadly this caused a "treadmill" effect and created a hard cap level range for the types of challenges you could face.  

For example going from hitting on an 11+ (50%) to hitting on a 16+ (25%) would make combats take twice as long and become very frustrating. In 4e this happened with a mere 5 level difference in PCs and monsters.

Well what if we took some of the good things about scaling bonuses, but toned them down (instead of completely removing them ala 5e).

What if we kept the 1/2 scaling for for the attack and defense values of monsters and PCs. You can experience crystal clear numerical advantage from advancement while keeping monsters relevent for longer periods. This would mean ability scores stay were they are once rolled (no more ability score increases), feats would not affect combat values, and magic items would not be assumed in system math. Other than your class and attributes, the only thing that determins your attack and defense values would be your level.

A level 10 fighter would still be challenged by a group of level 4 Gnolls or a single level 16 Wartroll.  This is because the difference in attack and defense values would only be 3. If the base hit rate is modified to be about 50% the Gnolls in this scenario would hit on a 14+ and the Wartroll would hit on a 8+.  Likewise, the fighter would hit the Gnolls on an 8+ and the Wartroll on a 14+. 

What benefit could this provide you may ask? Well for one it clearly demonstrates advancement from level growth. Many gamers feel that advancement isn't really advancement without a hard tangible increase in numerical capability. In 5e we have the worst of all worlds as leveling up provides almost no increase in capability, and almost no increase in numbers (aside from rapidly bloating HP and Damage). Scaling attack bonuses removes the "Robin Hood" problem where the world class level 10 archer hits the bullseye just as often as novice level 1 adventurer. Scaling attack and defense bonuses help to show the effects of combat skill and prowess on accuracy and avoidablity far better than solely through HP. Scaling attack and defense values also can give the party a better sense of danger when facing an unknown opponent.  The look of terror on your players faces when they roll a 14 and miss is priceless. Lastly, this could provide incentive for the designers to reduce HP and Damage bloat that the 5e system currently faces, which could speed up higher level 5e combats.

Now for skills, the 1/2 level advancement may not be necessary. I however would like to see some skill scaling with levels that is not feat based. I think skill training could grant a +2 bonus that increases by an additional amount equal to 1/2 of your level. The important piece of information here is that only skills you are trained in will automatically scale, unlike 4e where everything scaled automatically.

The most important thing to take away from all this is even if 5e includes the 1/2 level scaling bonus, it should not focus on a "treadmill".  The PCs could be challenged by a single level 4 Gnoll when they are first level adventurers, but could face an entire Gnoll warband when they are level 8. 

Likewise with skills, have the PCs come across a rickety bridge and laugh as the level 1 rogue who trained in acrobatics falls into thr river below.  At level 10 they come across a similar bridge and the rogue now crosses it with ease, while the dwarven fighter once again falls into the raging waters below.

Edit: So I propose a revision to my original request. Make skills, AC, and attack bonuses scale automatically, dependent upon training and class.

A good progression might be +1/2 level. (+5 at level 10, and +10 at level 20)
An average progression might be +1/3 level. (+3 at level 10 and +6 at level 20)
A poor progression might be +1/5 level. (+2 at level 10 and +4 at level 20)

Fighters will have a good AC and weapon attack scaling and poor magic attack scaling
Wizards will have a poor AC and weapon attack scaling and a good Magic attack scaling
Clerics will have average AC, weapon attack, and magic attack scaling

Skill training gives advantage and poor scaling to the chosen skill.
Expert training in a skill increases the progression to average.
Master skill training increases the progression to good.

*For this to work ability score increases, masterwork armor, and other non "skill" based scaling should be removed. This way you do not have unintended scaling at faster than normal.

My 5e Homebrew Material

The Warblade: A Mythic Fighter

The Hero: A Modular Class

There are better ways to have PC scaling than attack and defense bonuses.  Which ones?

All of them.  Attack and defense bonuses are the worst way to have PC scaling.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
What good is giving a 10th level fighter +5 more to-hit, if you're just going to raise equal "level" monsters' defenses by 5 to match?

It's called "the Treadmill Effect" for a reason.
There are better ways to have PC scaling than attack and defense bonuses.  Which ones?

All of them.  Attack and defense bonuses are the worst way to have PC scaling.




But the 5e method of almost no scaling leads to many problems even worse than adding in some "minor" scaling.

A high level fighter should be more able to defend himself against the attacks of an untrained novice.  In 5e this is not the case.

A high level fighter should be more likely to strike down an untrained novice.  In 5e this is not the case.

The bloat from only increasing HP and Damage will make combats take longer.

The "Robin Hood" conundrum.

All of these and more are caused by the 5e method of scaling.  The 4e method wasn't good either though, that is why I am suggesting a place inbetween the two.  A middle ground. The difference between a level 1 and level 10 warrior is only +5, not insurmountable, but nothing to sneeze at either.  A level 10 warrior could be still be beaten by a hoard of level 1 Orcs for example.

Also, I never said increasing numbers is the only thing that should increase as a character levels.  I would like to see increase character capabilities come with level.  5e has failed on either front however.  The only thing that imporoves with level in 5e is HP and Damage.  That is the true worst way to have PC scaling.
What good is giving a 10th level fighter +5 more to-hit, if you're just going to raise equal "level" monsters' defenses by 5 to match?

It's called "the Treadmill Effect" for a reason.



Did you read the part where I specifically called out to not do this.  If you can use monsters that are anywhere from +6 to -6 levels from you, there can be varied combats without a "treadmill".  Do not repeatedly send your PCs against even level monsters.  Not only that monsters will have varying defenses based on race, type, etc.  

Also, the designers have said that monsters attacks/defenses already scale with level in 5e. The rates are just slower (closer to 1/4 level).  Look at the fighter's attack bonus and armor advancements if you don't believe. Are you suggesting 5e has a treadmill already too? 
Your attack bonus increases as you level, hence you are going to be better at killing a novice as your level increases. The thing about defenses is that they increase with dex, otherwise you have to hope your armor is good enough. You don't have to grant players defense bonuses with level, it is entirely possible to do this with granting them better armor and with their dex bonus increases.
A high level fighter should be more able to defend himself against the attacks of an untrained novice.  In 5e this is not the case.

Only if you define "defend himself against the attacks of an untrained novice" as "be impossible to hit via unbounded defense bonuses"

A high level fighter should be more likely to strike down an untrained novice.  In 5e this is not the case.

Again, only if you define "likely to strike down an untrained novice" as "guaranteed to hit via unbounded attack bonuses."

The bloat from only increasing HP and Damage will make combats take longer.

...What?  If you increase both HP and Damage at the same rate, then combats take the same amount of time.  There is no bloat, unless you choose there to be by increasing HP faster than you increase damage.

The "Robin Hood" conundrum.

Clarify.  I have no idea what you're talking about.  Is this that thing about the archery competition?  If so, why do you insist on using an attack bonus mechanic to resolve it, when the attack bonus mechanic is designed specifically to adjudicate highly unrealistic combat in such a way that the game is at its most gamist and least simulationist point?

All of these and more are caused by the 5e method of scaling.

Only if you insist that the way prior games did it is the only way it "makes sense."  Think more broadly.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />
Also, I never said increasing numbers is the only thing that should increase as a character levels.  I would like to see increase character capabilities come with level.  5e has failed on either front however.  The only thing that imporoves with level in 5e is HP and Damage.  That is the true worst way to have PC scaling.

Your expectation is thoroughly unrealistic.  They're still working on getting the class systems working at all, so expecting them to have well-developed and compelling scaling is just plain unreasonable.

D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Absolutely disagree with 1/2 level bonus or every level bonus. The game becomes more geared towards numbers and more mechanics. I, for one support the non scale that the developers have come up with. It keeps the game rolling and fights easier to quick reference.
What good is giving a 10th level fighter +5 more to-hit, if you're just going to raise equal "level" monsters' defenses by 5 to match?

It's called "the Treadmill Effect" for a reason.



So as an example, take the following easily possible 10th level Fighter:
Belt of Giant Str 25
Magic Sword of Awesome +3
+2 bonus to hit from levels

Compared to roughly a 1st level character:
Str 16(-4 to hit)
No Magic Sword(-3 to hit)
No +2 bonus to hit from level(-2)

See? +9 to hit gained over 9 levels. Wonder where I've seen that pattern before...

So either the Fighter now auto-hits his opponents or hey, the average defenses of encounters go up to restore challenge.
Your attack bonus increases as you level, hence you are going to be better at killing a novice as your level increases.

And this leads to a circular argument.  I ask you why you're better at killing a novice, and you respond by saying because you're higher level.  I ask why being higher level makes you better at killing a novice, and you say because your attack bonus increases.

It's a rationalization that people have gotten so ingrained they can't imagine not having level directly increase attack bonuses.  It needs to be left behind.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I believe monsters AC doesn't scale with level. For the most part a monsters AC increases as its armor increases. So monster armor scales with level rather than AC. (Obviously Dex and natural armor bonuses may increase this number)
I'm personally absolutely opposed to any "per level" charity bonuses outside certain class features.

you will have your pool of extra feats/skills/abilities per level to improve you character.

You want to be more precise? Pay for it
more elusive? Pay for it.
have more/better skills? Pay for it.
more/better spells? Pay for it.
But the 5e method of almost no scaling leads to many problems even worse than adding in some "minor" scaling.

Not true. As I have actually been playing 5e, I've seen substantial improvement from my PCs just from 1st (to currently 5th).

A high level fighter should be more able to defend himself against the attacks of an untrained novice.  In 5e this is not the case.

Not true. Having substantially more HPs, and more and better abilities to mitigate damage, make for a much tougher opponent than the novice can handle.

A high level fighter should be more likely to strike down an untrained novice.  In 5e this is not the case.

Not true. The 5th level fighter is doing a huge % of the novice's HPs in one swing. Fight ends quickly.

The bloat from only increasing HP and Damage will make combats take longer.

Not true. Damage scales with HPs. A monster, comparable in power to the PCs, will have more HPs, yes. But only in proportion to the increases in damage being delt by the PCs.

A 1st-level party against typical "1st-level" monsters might take 2-4 rounds to defeat them. A 10th-level party up against typical "10th-level" monsters should take roughly the same amount of time. There is the scaling.

But now, "1st-level" monsters, in large numbers, are still potentially a threat to 10th-level PCs. Albeit, they become minions in that a 10th-level PC will do enough damage per swing (or groups of swings) to drop them like chaff.
Your attack bonus increases as you level, hence you are going to be better at killing a novice as your level increases.

And this leads to a circular argument.  I ask you why you're better at killing a novice, and you respond by saying because you're higher level.  I ask why being higher level makes you better at killing a novice, and you say because your attack bonus increases.

It's a rationalization that people have gotten so ingrained they can't imagine not having level directly increase attack bonuses.  It needs to be left behind.



Are you just trying to disagree with me to disagree with me? I mean your last sentence has no barring on what I said unless you are trying to make up an argument. I am stating a fact your attack does increase with level. Whether that should or should not be the case I have never said.
What good is giving a 10th level fighter +5 more to-hit, if you're just going to raise equal "level" monsters' defenses by 5 to match?

It's called "the Treadmill Effect" for a reason.



So as an example, take the following easily possible 10th level Fighter:
Belt of Giant Str 25
Magic Sword of Awesome +3
+2 bonus to hit from levels

Compared to roughly a 1st level character:
Str 16(-4 to hit)
No Magic Sword(-3 to hit)
No +2 bonus to hit from level(-2)

See? +9 to hit gained over 9 levels. Wonder where I've seen that pattern before...

So either the Fighter now auto-hits his opponents or hey, the average defenses of encounters go up to restore challenge.


... but isn't another goal of 5E to go back to making magic items "magical", instead of automatically assuming that you're getting all the best toys every Xmas?

So if that's the case, you can just eliminate the magic item bonuses from your assumptions to get an increase of +2 to hit from levels.
So as an example, take the following easily possible 10th level Fighter:
Belt of Giant Str 25
Magic Sword of Awesome +3
+2 bonus to hit from levels

Compared to roughly a 1st level character:
Str 16(-4 to hit)
No Magic Sword(-3 to hit)
No +2 bonus to hit from level(-2)

See? +9 to hit gained over 9 levels. Wonder where I've seen that pattern before...

So either the Fighter now auto-hits his opponents or hey, the average defenses of encounters go up to restore challenge.

So your argument (once again we see the same trite complaints) is that they have not dialed in the particulars just right yet?

Uh-huh. Gotcha. We get that. We are all in agreement there.

What does that have to do with scrapping the idea of BA and going back on the treadmill?



P.S.> And we should also probably break down a few glaring issues with your example:

A) Its been fairly universally acknowledged that the belts of giant strength are at complete odds with BA and need a major overhaul. So that part of your example is irrelevant.

B) Magic items (aside from being optional), especially '+' items, are designed to *make you better*. Universally. So yes, yes, a thousand times yes, a +3 weapon is a huge deal for a character. Its an epic level weapon of immense power. So? That does not invalidate BA. It is a feature of it.

I think the OP is missing the point behind the bounded accuracy philosophy. For DDN/5e, damage is the new BAB/THAC0, so the only thing that needs to scale (or at least noticably scale) is damage and HPs. If you want your level 10 martial character be able to take out that horde of level 1 goblins, then by virtue of having more HP (and the goblins doing considerably less damage), the character could take out significantly more of them than when (s)he was level 1.

Magic Dual Color Test
I am White/Green
I am White/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.
I think the OP is missing the point behind the bounded accuracy philosophy. For DDN/5e, damage is the new BAB/THAC0, so the only thing that needs to scale (or at least noticably scale) is damage and HPs. If you want your level 10 martial character be able to take out that horde of level 1 goblins, then by virtue of having more HP (and the goblins doing considerably less damage), the character could take out significantly more of them than when (s)he was level 1.


To be fair, disagreement with the BA philosophy doesn't necesarily indicate a lack of "understanding"... it could mean that someone understands it just fine, but doesn't like the thought of it.
Ripping the 1/2 level bonus malarkey out of 4th Ed like a cancerous growth was the best thing we could have done for the game, makes it more playable across the levels (monsters are challenging for longer, you don't get that treadmill disconnect, etc), it really works,

I recommend any who play 4th Ed to try a session with removing 1/2 level from all character's and monster's Attacks, Defences and Skills, trust me.
Ripping the 1/2 level bonus malarkey out of 4th Ed like a cancerous growth was the best thing we could have done for the game, makes it more playable across the levels (monsters are challenging for longer, you don't get that treadmill disconnect, etc), it really works,

I recommend any who play 4th Ed to try a session with removing 1/2 level from all character's and monster's Attacks, Defences and Skills, trust me.



That is basically what I am suggesting.  The scaling in 4e was too fast (+1 per level).  Reduce the scaling to half of that (+1 every other level), and the system works out much more cleanly.  
Ripping the 1/2 level bonus malarkey out of 4th Ed like a cancerous growth was the best thing we could have done for the game, makes it more playable across the levels (monsters are challenging for longer, you don't get that treadmill disconnect, etc), it really works,

I recommend any who play 4th Ed to try a session with removing 1/2 level from all character's and monster's Attacks, Defences and Skills, trust me.



That is basically what I am suggesting.  The scaling in 4e was too fast (+1 per level).  Reduce the scaling to half of that (+1 every other level), and the system works out much more cleanly.  



but 4E has lots of ways to improve your character via feats more HP and bonus abilities, passive per level bonuses are just overkill.

I think the OP is missing the point behind the bounded accuracy philosophy. For DDN/5e, damage is the new BAB/THAC0, so the only thing that needs to scale (or at least noticably scale) is damage and HPs. If you want your level 10 martial character be able to take out that horde of level 1 goblins, then by virtue of having more HP (and the goblins doing considerably less damage), the character could take out significantly more of them than when (s)he was level 1.


To be fair, disagreement with the BA philosophy doesn't necesarily indicate a lack of "understanding"... it could mean that someone understands it just fine, but doesn't like the thought of it.


I haven't seen a single person yet demonstrate understanding of it and yet still dislike it.  Inevitably, they make claims that are specifically contradicted by direct quotes from the developer, in the original article where it was introduced.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Ripping the 1/2 level bonus malarkey out of 4th Ed like a cancerous growth was the best thing we could have done for the game, makes it more playable across the levels (monsters are challenging for longer, you don't get that treadmill disconnect, etc), it really works,

I recommend any who play 4th Ed to try a session with removing 1/2 level from all character's and monster's Attacks, Defences and Skills, trust me.



That is basically what I am suggesting.  The scaling in 4e was too fast (+1 per level).  Reduce the scaling to half of that (+1 every other level), and the system works out much more cleanly.  




Why not rip it out completely, the character's Attacks/Defences/Skills will grow from Ability Score Increases, Feats, and Magic Items/Inherent Bonuses (we use) quick enough.
Lawolf, you do realize it's all number porn, right?

If everyone gets +X per Y levels, to both attacks and defenses, it doesn't do anything.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Ripping the 1/2 level bonus malarkey out of 4th Ed like a cancerous growth was the best thing we could have done for the game, makes it more playable across the levels (monsters are challenging for longer, you don't get that treadmill disconnect, etc), it really works,

I recommend any who play 4th Ed to try a session with removing 1/2 level from all character's and monster's Attacks, Defences and Skills, trust me.



That is basically what I am suggesting.  The scaling in 4e was too fast (+1 per level).  Reduce the scaling to half of that (+1 every other level), and the system works out much more cleanly.  




Why not rip it out completely, the character's Attacks/Defences/Skills will grow from Ability Score Increases, Feats, and Magic Items/Inherent Bonuses (we use) quick enough.



Having things grow from ability score, feat, magic items, etc works just fine too.  Both ways the net result is to slow character growth to 1/2 level instead of +1 per level.  This helps PCs overcome challenges that are "actually harder" without slipping into the "treadmill territory" 4e reached.

I was never really a fan of all those expertise feats, ability score increase, and magic items/inherent bonuses because the scaling of it is wonky and the feats feel like taxes.

That is why I prefer keeping the 1/2 level scaling but removing all that other complicated stuff.  Same result, just achieved in a different way.  I do think 4e skills should only scale if trained however, and training should grant roll 2d20 take highest instead of +5. And 4e should be condensed to 20 levels...not 30.  And the number of powers should be reduced.  And most powers should not require you to track an effect for just 1 round. And, I am ranting...
Ripping the 1/2 level bonus malarkey out of 4th Ed like a cancerous growth was the best thing we could have done for the game, makes it more playable across the levels (monsters are challenging for longer, you don't get that treadmill disconnect, etc), it really works,

I recommend any who play 4th Ed to try a session with removing 1/2 level from all character's and monster's Attacks, Defences and Skills, trust me.



That is basically what I am suggesting.  The scaling in 4e was too fast (+1 per level).  Reduce the scaling to half of that (+1 every other level), and the system works out much more cleanly.  




Why not rip it out completely, the character's Attacks/Defences/Skills will grow from Ability Score Increases, Feats, and Magic Items/Inherent Bonuses (we use) quick enough.



Having things grow from ability score, feat, magic items, etc works just fine too.  Both ways the net result is to slow character growth to 1/2 level instead of +1 per level.  This helps PCs overcome challenges that are "actually harder" without slipping into the "treadmill territory" 4e reached.

You do realize that PCs will still improve under Bounded Accuracy, right?  It's just that the monster's won't automagically improve with them, hence the treadmill effect?

D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
No, thanks for me.
I dislike numbers bloat. I would take the 1/2 scaling off 4E too if I could do it without messing up the system.
Lawolf, you do realize it's all number porn, right?

If everyone gets +X per Y levels, to both attacks and defenses, it doesn't do anything.



Not everyone is the same level...therefore it does do something...
No, thanks for me.
I dislike numbers bloat. I would take the 1/2 scaling off 4E too if I could do it without messing up the system.



You can, remove the 1/2 level bonus from both monsters and PCs and the math still works fine.  In fact it works exactly like I am suggesting here.  The difference is that it does it without requiring feats, magic items, and ability score increases. 
Lawolf, you do realize it's all number porn, right?

If everyone gets +X per Y levels, to both attacks and defenses, it doesn't do anything.



Not everyone is the same level...therefore it does do something...


Level is meaningless.  No, really, it has no meaning.  I challenge you to prove me wrong, and explain to me what level means, in the context of a character in the narrative.  What does level mean, and why does it matter at all? 
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition

To be fair, disagreement with the BA philosophy doesn't necesarily indicate a lack of "understanding"... it could mean that someone understands it just fine, but doesn't like the thought of it.


I haven't seen a single person yet demonstrate understanding of it and yet still dislike it.  Inevitably, they make claims that are specifically contradicted by direct quotes from the developer, in the original article where it was introduced.


Even though I agree with the idea behind BA, and I look forward to seeing it implemented properly... the possibility still exists that someone might not like it, personally. 

Granted, it does seem like the people who are expressing their dislike seem to be justifying themselves by creating examples that are ridiculously, unrepresentative of the BA concept... but I imagine that they're just being willfully dense.
No, thanks for me.
I dislike numbers bloat. I would take the 1/2 scaling off 4E too if I could do it without messing up the system.




It does mess up the system one at all, only enhances it.

Your character would still need to roll an 11 or what-have-you on a d20 to hit, but instead of adding +17, you add +7, no difference, except for a bigger (more impressive...?) modifier, what does it matter if in the end you still need to roll the same actual number on a d20?



Get it (and Lawolf)?
Lawolf, you do realize it's all number porn, right?

If everyone gets +X per Y levels, to both attacks and defenses, it doesn't do anything.



Not everyone is the same level...therefore it does do something...


Level is meaningless.




A low skilled monk (level 1) challenges a highly skilled fighter (level 10).  Due to a lack of increases attack and defense values from experience it takes such a fighter exactly as long to take out this monk as it would were he a brand new adventurer (1 hit kill).  This highly skilled warrior is easily hit by the monks attacks which can send him flying backwards 10 ft or more.  This highly skilled warrior can be easily stunned by this lowly monk as well.

Now we have experience in combat mean more than just HP and Damage (+1/2 level bonus).  The lowly monk will connect with a stunning strike or a knockback ability only half as often.  The fighter on the other hand will disable the monk 50% faster because he hits more often.  

That is why I do not like the scaling of 5e.  It makes logic fall apart in many situations. 

You can, remove the 1/2 level bonus from both monsters and PCs and the math still works fine.  In fact it works exactly like I am suggesting here.  The difference is that it does it without requiring feats, magic items, and ability score increases. 



In 4E? That wouldn't work because monsters scale at +1/LV, to make up for feats, magic items and stats scaling from PCs. 
Or do you mean something else? 

To be fair, disagreement with the BA philosophy doesn't necesarily indicate a lack of "understanding"... it could mean that someone understands it just fine, but doesn't like the thought of it.


I haven't seen a single person yet demonstrate understanding of it and yet still dislike it.  Inevitably, they make claims that are specifically contradicted by direct quotes from the developer, in the original article where it was introduced.


Even though I agree with the idea behind BA, and I look forward to seeing it implemented properly... the possibility still exists that someone might not like it, personally.

Absolutely.  I haven't yet seen it happen, not without a firmly established, directly refutable misunderstanding of what BA does and does not do.  Usually coupled with an outright refusal to even consider rectifying that misunderstanding, as well.  Despite being provided with direct developer quotes.

D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
logic

Only the logic that has been established in the past 30 years of awful math.  And that deserves to go away, because it's bad and always has been.  That we've never known anything better is no excuse for continuing to use bad math.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition

You can, remove the 1/2 level bonus from both monsters and PCs and the math still works fine.  In fact it works exactly like I am suggesting here.  The difference is that it does it without requiring feats, magic items, and ability score increases. 



In 4E? That wouldn't work because monsters scale at +1/LV, to make up for feats, magic items and stats scaling from PCs. 
Or do you mean something else? 



Remove 1/2 level bonus from PCs.  Then reduce monster values by 1/2 of the monster's level.

Boom 1/2 level bonus removed.

(Well actually it has just been reduced across the board to 1/2 level instead of 1 per level). 
Level is meaningless.  No, really, it has no meaning.  I challenge you to prove me wrong, and explain to me what level means, in the context of a character in the narrative.  What does level mean, and why does it matter at all? 

Another huge benefit of BA:

Level disparity amongst PCs.

Let's say, for whatever quirky reason created at a particular game group's table, one of the players is a fighter of 6th-level, while the rest of the group is 10th.

They encounter a dragon.

The 6th-level fighter is definitely a little more squishy (less HPs, but likely comparable AC) and needs to take care. But he can still very much contribute to the group. He will hit the dragon. Nearly as much as anyone else. Sure, he's doing a bit less damage than the others. Because he's still a bit more green compared to the vets. But at least his contributions are positive and quantifiable.

Now go try that in 4e. Lemme know how that goes...

Ripping the 1/2 level bonus malarkey out of 4th Ed like a cancerous growth was the best thing we could have done for the game, makes it more playable across the levels (monsters are challenging for longer, you don't get that treadmill disconnect, etc), it really works,

I recommend any who play 4th Ed to try a session with removing 1/2 level from all character's and monster's Attacks, Defences and Skills, trust me.



How did you managed to get the math to work? I'm sincerely intrigued about how you resolved the issue with PCs and monsters scaling at different rates (+1/2 lv vs +1 lv).
I tried and it was a massive pain. 
I think characters should get +10 attack/level, and monsters shoul get +10 AC/level. 

That would really make me feel powerful... oh wait,  pretending bonuses make me better isn't fun.

Making bonuses actually matter is FUN. Nevermind.

 

My mind is a deal-breaker.

Lawolf, you do realize it's all number porn, right?

If everyone gets +X per Y levels, to both attacks and defenses, it doesn't do anything.



Not everyone is the same level...therefore it does do something...


Level is meaningless.




A low skilled monk (level 1) challenges a highly skilled fighter (level 10).  Due to a lack of increases attack and defense values from experience it takes such a fighter exactly as long to take out this monk as it would were he a brand new adventurer (1 hit kill).  This highly skilled warrior is easily hit by the monks attacks which can send him flying backwards 10 ft or more.  This highly skilled warrior can be easily stunned by this lowly monk as well.

Now we have experience in combat mean more than just HP and Damage (+1/2 level bonus).  The lowly monk will connect with a stunning strike or a knockback ability only half as often.  The fighter on the other hand will disable the monk 50% faster because he hits more often.  

That is why I do not like the scaling of 5e.  It makes logic fall apart in many situations. 



The fighter's superior skill is now represented by his greater hit points.  The lowly monk's damage means he will struggle to defeat the fighter before he is killed BUT - he can still hurt the fighter - a lucky hit and a poor saving throw means that this monk remains an albeit reduced threat  far more so than a low level monster fighting against a high level 4e PC.  The way to make the fighter seem more powerful and skilled is to give him interesting class features as he levels that help him to resist being stunned or pushed e.g. by spending expertise dice. 

I'm also in favour of front loading hit points more like the first playtest.  This way the high level fighter will indeed be more effective at taking down this low level monk because his increased damage will take out the monk faster. 

However - I do think that some limited (non-stackable) ways to improve AC slightly should exist in feats.  I'd sooner see this than magical bonuses being required to up the AC.

Sign In to post comments