4e Flat Rate

18 posts / 0 new
Last post
What would happen if you altered 4th edition so that every calculation that relied upon number just used the number 1? To be more clear, characters never level past level 1 for the sake of calculating attack, skills, or other bonuses?

Damage and effects would be adjusted to level-1 appropriate.

Take it a step further, and reduce all monster hit points by 20% (leaving them with 80% of their MM3-value hit points). Monster Avg Damage becomes 10 (15 for a powerful encounter ability, 12 for brutes, 7 for AoE, 5 for minions).

What sort of effects could this have on the game?

Supporting an edition you like does not make you an edition warrior. Demanding that everybody else support your edition makes you an edition warrior.

Why do I like 13th Age? Because I like D&D: http://magbonch.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/first-impressions-13th-age/

AzoriusGuildmage- "I think that you simply spent so long playing it, especially in your formative years with the hobby, that you've long since rationalized or houseruled away its oddities, and set it in your mind as the standard for what is and isn't reasonable in an rpg."

Boredom? 

You may as well roleplay chess. 
Back to Basics - A Guide to Basic Attacks You might be playing DnD wrong if... "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein
Seems like it would suck a lot of the enjoyment of specializing your character out of the game.  The differences in Fort, Ref, attacks and damage between a first level fighter and rogue are not so much as those between 10th or 20th level characters. 

Not only that but it would require a tremendous amount of work to rebalance everything from magic items, spells, skill checks etc.  Much of which would require you to arbitrate, which could be perceived as unfair to/by some player characters.   

Also negates the thrill of character advancement.  If that new big spell you've been waiting for is going to do the exact same amount of damage you are doing now with a lower level spell. 
...and in the ancient voice of a million squirrels the begotten chittered "You have set upon yourselves a great and noble task, dare you step further, what say you! What say you!"

You create a game that's still better than Next?







It's a joke.  Lighten up.

OD&D, 1E and 2E challenged the player. 3E challenged the character, not the player. Now 4E takes it a step further by challenging a GROUP OF PLAYERS to work together as a TEAM. That's why I love 4E.

"Your ability to summon a horde of celestial superbeings at will is making my ... BMX skills look a bit redundant."

"People treat their lack of imagination as if it's the measure of what's silly. Which is silly." - Noon

"Challenge" is overrated.  "Immersion" is usually just a more pretentious way of saying "having fun playing D&D."

"Falling down is how you grow.  Staying down is how you die.  It's not what happens to you, it's what you do after it happens.”

Boredom? 

You may as well roleplay chess. 

Perhaps this is for and from a different playstyle; personally I find the storyline and character development to be far, far more interesting than "Hey my attacks just went up directly inline with the monsters AC! I still have to roll the same number to hit monsters but it SEEMS like I am advancing!". But maybe that's just me.

Seems like it would suck a lot of the enjoyment of specializing your character out of the game.  The differences in Fort, Ref, attacks and damage between a first level fighter and rogue are not so much as those between 10th or 20th level characters.

Why would that be any different? If you get a +2 to your fort for a certain thing later on down the line, that still would apply if your "n" was =1.

Not only that but it would require a tremendous amount of work to rebalance everything from magic items, spells, skill checks etc.  Much of which would require you to arbitrate, which could be perceived as unfair to/by some player characters.

The biggest rework would be powers, and the benefits they give. Most other magic items have tiers that follow a logical sequence and can be dropped down lower without too much of an issue, I think. But yes, this would require a significant rework of a great deal of material, being the primary hestiation I even have about it.

Also negates the thrill of character advancement.  If that new big spell you've been waiting for is going to do the exact same amount of damage you are doing now with a lower level spell. 

But I thought "Ball of Fire MkI" being upgraded into "Ball of Fire MkII" was equally boring? This was a particular complaint of mine - that there are powers that are exact duplicates in everything except how big the numbers are.

Supporting an edition you like does not make you an edition warrior. Demanding that everybody else support your edition makes you an edition warrior.

Why do I like 13th Age? Because I like D&D: http://magbonch.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/first-impressions-13th-age/

AzoriusGuildmage- "I think that you simply spent so long playing it, especially in your formative years with the hobby, that you've long since rationalized or houseruled away its oddities, and set it in your mind as the standard for what is and isn't reasonable in an rpg."

One of the everlasting features of RPGs has been the ability to "level up."  Even in a classless, skills based game, the ability to gain power is very prevalent.  Remove that feature and you have a very different game and experience.

That being said, if you can find a group of players willing to try it (in all candor not very likely), go for it.  See what happens and report back.

 

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/19.jpg)

Are you really "entitled to your opinion"?
RedSiegfried wrote:
The cool thing is, you don't even NEED a reason to say yes.  Just stop looking for a reason to say no.
One of the everlasting features of RPGs has been the ability to "level up."  Even in a classless, skills based game, the ability to gain power is very prevalent.  Remove that feature and you have a very different game and experience.

Off the top of my head, neither Traveller nor Spirit of the Century involve explicit levelling up. Traveller characters are expected to acquire wealth and the attendant toys (including implanted computers or surgery that augment their skills and characteristics), but the character numbers are mostly fixed at the end of character generation. Spirit of the Century allows for some change and evolution of the characters, but they're not expected ever to become significantly better than when they started out.

Neither game is going to be to everyone's taste, but they're reasonably popular and well-made.

4th Edition could have a flattened curve and still work. I don't think there's a quick formula for doing it, but I'm sure it's possible. Leave damage and HP alone for a while, and try subtracting half-level from all PC skills and defenses and full level from all monster skills and defenses. See what happens.

If I have to ask the GM for it, then I don't want it.

What effect would it have on the game?

Well, for starters, it would no longer be the same game.  It would be an entirely different game system.  By throwing out level progression and everything tied to it, you've also thrown out the bulk of the system, as well as its design goals.

Second, what you would have left would be an incomplete game that would have to be redesigned from the ground up to have the same, or at least similar, appeal and lastingness as the system it replaced. 

Though at this point, you would be better incorporating lessons learned from 4e and previous editions into a new system from made from scratch, rather than try to mold an established formula into something that it's not.  That way you can ensure that the game is a graceful sequel whose elements compliment the new design goals, rather that forcing square pegs into round holes.
Thinking about creating a race for 4e? Make things a lil' easier on yourself by reading my Race Mechanic Creation Guide first.
For me, a lot of the fun in advancement is being able to succeed easily on tasks that were previously difficult. If I'm picking a masterwork lock (or fighting orcish raiders, or whatever), and I'm not doing so well, then victory will be twice as nice when I come back in ten levels and don't even break a sweat.

The metagame is not the game.

For me, a lot of the fun in advancement is being able to succeed easily on tasks that were previously difficult. If I'm picking a masterwork lock (or fighting orcish raiders, or whatever), and I'm not doing so well, then victory will be twice as nice when I come back in ten levels and don't even break a sweat.

Right. This is what I feel like isn't understood well, or conveyed very clearly by the game. Yes, you're not hitting the monsters any more easily, but you're not facing the same monsters. The tasks you attempt aren't any easier for you, but they're progressively more epic tasks. If the game encouraged, which it doesn't as far as I'm aware, exposing PCs to challenges that are too tough for them, to show how those tasks are easier later, maybe this would have been more clear to people. One could have the PCs fight a certain monster when it's X levels above them, then at level, and then X levels below them, but that doesn't seem to me like the best use of anyone's time.

If I have to ask the GM for it, then I don't want it.

It's the whole thing where people say that all monsters should be a signficant threat at all levels (in Next - BA).  I disagree.  Level 1 kobolds are level 1 for a reason, so they can challenge level 1 PCs.  If the PCs are level 10, they should fight five level ten kobolds if they want a normal challenge against kobolds, not 100 level one kobolds.  If they want kobolds to be easy, just keep using the level 1 versions, and fight a small number of them and wipe the floor with them in one round.

Perhaps this difficulty some folks have is because the rules for levelling monsters up and down are not clear or not used very much and they simply rely on what is published in the Monster books, a particular monster presented with perhaps three variations at different levels but nothing in between.  If they had the Monster Builder, or just levelled the monster up and down spending a few minutes doing some simple math, they'd never lack a monster that is of any challenge level they desire.

OD&D, 1E and 2E challenged the player. 3E challenged the character, not the player. Now 4E takes it a step further by challenging a GROUP OF PLAYERS to work together as a TEAM. That's why I love 4E.

"Your ability to summon a horde of celestial superbeings at will is making my ... BMX skills look a bit redundant."

"People treat their lack of imagination as if it's the measure of what's silly. Which is silly." - Noon

"Challenge" is overrated.  "Immersion" is usually just a more pretentious way of saying "having fun playing D&D."

"Falling down is how you grow.  Staying down is how you die.  It's not what happens to you, it's what you do after it happens.”

If all rolls were 1, then you'd auto-fail everything.

That aside, I'd feel bad for the strikers. It would make weapon choice a  moot point (a 1d4 dagger does 1 damage, as does the 2 handed 1d10 mordenkrad) and make multi-strike so very much more powerful - a wizard would become the strongest class in both damage and utility.

It'd also remove the 'challenge' or battles - you either auto-miss or auto-hit with your attack every single time (presumably miss, as at level 1 you have between +3 and +9 to attack - so looking at 4-10 vs monster defences)

As an alternative to play DnD, but still not have too many dice rolls, why not just include more roleplaying? If you (or your group) hate the dice rolling aspects, you could just ignore the combat alltogether and verbally describe the fight? Then again, at that point you've missed about 90% of the DnD content :P

As an aside, I'm always iffy about levelling monsters up/down. I like my players to feel that kobolds are always kinda lame (low levels), whilst if they see it is a hook horror, then it will be quite scary (about level 17) - so I wouldn't have level 17 version of a kobold, or a level 1 version of a hook horror. It kind of destroys the illusion of monster scariness/  power (at least to me).
For me, a lot of the fun in advancement is being able to succeed easily on tasks that were previously difficult. If I'm picking a masterwork lock (or fighting orcish raiders, or whatever), and I'm not doing so well, then victory will be twice as nice when I come back in ten levels and don't even break a sweat.

Right. This is what I feel like isn't understood well, or conveyed very clearly by the game. Yes, you're not hitting the monsters any more easily, but you're not facing the same monsters. The tasks you attempt aren't any easier for you, but they're progressively more epic tasks. If the game encouraged, which it doesn't as far as I'm aware, exposing PCs to challenges that are too tough for them, to show how those tasks are easier later, maybe this would have been more clear to people. One could have the PCs fight a certain monster when it's X levels above them, then at level, and then X levels below them, but that doesn't seem to me like the best use of anyone's time.



Chris Perkins writes a lot about bringing in lower-level monsters for higher level PCs, both to make them feel powerful and competent, but also for story reasons -- it's not likely that once the PCs got to level 8, Kobolds went extinct.  What Perkins does stress is making each encounter unique.  He gave an example of a horde of goblins, some of which were wired to blow and were trying to take down the PC's ship.  The challenge, then, was not in mowing down easy enemies but in keeping the most dangerous of those enemies from gaining access to the ship in the first place, or they could suffer the consequences if they failed.  
What would happen if you altered 4th edition so that every calculation that relied upon number just used the number 1? To be more clear, characters never level past level 1 for the sake of calculating attack, skills, or other bonuses?

Damage and effects would be adjusted to level-1 appropriate.

Take it a step further, and reduce all monster hit points by 20% (leaving them with 80% of their MM3-value hit points). Monster Avg Damage becomes 10 (15 for a powerful encounter ability, 12 for brutes, 7 for AoE, 5 for minions).

What sort of effects could this have on the game?




Who cares what effects it'd have, I want to know why I would do this to begin with.
Chris Perkins writes a lot about bringing in lower-level monsters for higher level PCs, both to make them feel powerful and competent, but also for story reasons -- it's not likely that once the PCs got to level 8, Kobolds went extinct.

Obviously not, but just because the PCs aren't fighting them doesn't mean they don't exist.

I started my game at Paragon and when the PC came to a town in the world, I thought it would be interesting for them to be threatened by a local criminal group. I was having trouble seeing how to make this a threat, when I finally realized something: it wouldn't be. Any canny criminal group would give these characters a wide berth, because this group had probably already smashed other criminal groups in their Heroic days. Of course the criminal groups still exist, but they're far below the PCs' radar.

It's like not mentioning stray cats or birds in the forest. Obviously they're there, but they're not significant beyond adding some flavor. So, the PCs might run into some kobolds, but the kobolds wouldn't fight them. They might respect the PCs or flee from them, depending on past PC actions, but they wouldn't fight them.

What Perkins does stress is making each encounter unique.  He gave an example of a horde of goblins, some of which were wired to blow and were trying to take down the PC's ship.  The challenge, then, was not in mowing down easy enemies but in keeping the most dangerous of those enemies from gaining access to the ship in the first place, or they could suffer the consequences if they failed. 

That's excellent, and I highly recommend it. But I don't need cheap-o goblins for that, and goblins might not be appropriate. I could reflavor cheap-o goblins into sahuagin or koa-toa or githyanki or whatever, but 4th Edition already gave me a way to use expendable monsters in interesting ways: minions. I'm not stuck using old monsters, I just make versions of the new monsters who serve their purpose in the encounter, and the purpose of monsters in most encounters isn't to show that an old threat is still around is easy to crunch form.

If I have to ask the GM for it, then I don't want it.

If all rolls were 1, then you'd auto-fail everything.

I think you totally misunderstood. Let me clarify.

All instances of "add one half your level" or "monster level" is set to 1. Your attack bonus, damage, defenses, monster attack/damage/defenses never go anywhere - they stay right where they were at level 1 (other than bonuses added by new class features or feats being taken up as the character advances).


Chris Perkins writes a lot about bringing in lower-level monsters for higher level PCs, both to make them feel powerful and competent, but also for story reasons -- it's not likely that once the PCs got to level 8, Kobolds went extinct.  What Perkins does stress is making each encounter unique.  He gave an example of a horde of goblins, some of which were wired to blow and were trying to take down the PC's ship.  The challenge, then, was not in mowing down easy enemies but in keeping the most dangerous of those enemies from gaining access to the ship in the first place, or they could suffer the consequences if they failed.  

I've always found the ability to use any monster of any level at any time in the game to be way, way more interesting than being limited to "mid level adventurers fight these monsters, low level fight things kind" sort of predictability. Even with the levelling system in place, I level monsters up and down (or more generally, I hand-make any monster I use in the game because I have an advanced group that requires monsters that can really dish it out) all the time - I've had level 16 kobold sorcerer elites that pop up and are totally a significant challenge for mid-paragon adventurers. Given that I run Eberron campaigns so often, this really isn't a nonsense idea at all.

I suppose it's always been more about the story, the character interaction, and the unfolding plot and details of that sort that draw me to a game - levelling my character has little to no interest to me at all; I'd honestly be just find with a competent character that picks up a few new abilities here and there and stays otherwise the same the entire campaign.

Who cares what effects it'd have, I want to know why I would do this to begin with.

For one, if you're that objectionate to the concept, you probably wouldn't. That aside, I find it an interesting thought in what makes levelling up interesting.

Supporting an edition you like does not make you an edition warrior. Demanding that everybody else support your edition makes you an edition warrior.

Why do I like 13th Age? Because I like D&D: http://magbonch.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/first-impressions-13th-age/

AzoriusGuildmage- "I think that you simply spent so long playing it, especially in your formative years with the hobby, that you've long since rationalized or houseruled away its oddities, and set it in your mind as the standard for what is and isn't reasonable in an rpg."

I've always found the ability to use any monster of any level at any time in the game to be way, way more interesting than being limited to "mid level adventurers fight these monsters, low level fight things kind" sort of predictability. Even with the levelling system in place, I level monsters up and down (or more generally, I hand-make any monster I use in the game because I have an advanced group that requires monsters that can really dish it out) all the time - I've had level 16 kobold sorcerer elites that pop up and are totally a significant challenge for mid-paragon adventurers. Given that I run Eberron campaigns so often, this really isn't a nonsense idea at all.

I just question why it's necessary for the mechanics of the game to enable this sort of thing directly, especially when it's so easy to reflavor. The game already makes design decisions intended to bring about certain tropes of the genre, such as fragile wizards, and hardy dwarves. Why not also have a system that encourages fighting "minor" monsters early and "epic" monsters later?

I suppose it's always been more about the story, the character interaction, and the unfolding plot and details of that sort that draw me to a game - levelling my character has little to no interest to me at all;

Right.

I'd honestly be just find with a competent character that picks up a few new abilities here and there and stays otherwise the same the entire campaign.

Which, as you've pointed out, they do. They hit at about the same rate (at least in theory), and have the same chances of accomplishing tasks.

But I don't have an issue with essentially removing levelling as a focus. Plenty of games do that already.

That aside, I find it an interesting thought in what makes levelling up interesting.

I think it's used to be a convenient shorthand for showing how long and how well someone had been playing the game. Nowadays, it's a shorthand for the kinds of play people like, in terms of complexity and scope. If someone says they want to run a level 11 game, it's a good guess that they're up for some world-hopping and some pretty-widely scoped adventure. It's probably not just kobold popping.

A low-level adventure can still have a wide scope right off the bad, but the shorthand generally works.

If I have to ask the GM for it, then I don't want it.

What would happen if you altered 4th edition so that every calculation that relied upon number just used the number 1? To be more clear, characters never level past level 1 for the sake of calculating attack, skills, or other bonuses?

Damage and effects would be adjusted to level-1 appropriate.

Take it a step further, and reduce all monster hit points by 20% (leaving them with 80% of their MM3-value hit points). Monster Avg Damage becomes 10 (15 for a powerful encounter ability, 12 for brutes, 7 for AoE, 5 for minions).

What sort of effects could this have on the game?




Who cares what effects it'd have, I want to know why I would do this to begin with.

My thoughts exactly.
"The real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development." -Albert Einstein Resident Left Hand of Stalin and Banana Stand Grandstander Half of the Ambiguously Gay Duo House of Trolls, looking for a partner Wondering what happened to the Star Wars forums?
Show
Star Wars Minis has a home here http://www.bloomilk.com/ and Star Wars Saga Edition RPG has a home here http://thesagacontinues.createaforum.com/index.php
Show
141722973 wrote:
And it wasn't ****. It was subjectively concensual sex.
57036828 wrote:
Marketing and design are two different things. For instance the snuggy was designed for people in wheel chairs and marketed to people that are too incompetent to operate a blanket.
75239035 wrote:
I personally don't want him decapitated.
141722973 wrote:
And do not call me a Yank. I am a Québecois, basically your better.
And the greatest post moderation of all time...
58115148 wrote:
I gave that (Content Removed) a to-scale Lego replica. (Content Removed) love to-scale Lego replicas. (ORC_Cerberus: Edited - Vulgarity is against the Code of Conduct)
Sign In to post comments