To replace these feats, I think characters should get a +1 or +2 bonus to everything that should scale with leve at level 11 and 21. Why remove ability score increases? I think that is the most logical of all over-time increases
problem with that is there is to little benifit to leveling up and players like the feal of leveling up, so you basicaly need to grant them the feal of being stronger without making lower level monsters and characters useless.
You still advance in your class via levels, so you still get new powers, feats, paragon paths, epic destinies etc. Since there is no good way of preventing damage scaling you also advance in HP (think of it as EFFECTIVE hit points instead of just general toughness. For example, psions might think of half their hit points as the durability of their "psionic shield" that enemies have to pierce before doing them any real physical harm.).
I think he was referring to my post in particular. The problem with the whole scaling HP, attacks and defenses is that while there is an illusion of progress, an inevitable arms race where players quickly find themselves on the losing side if they don't have their "basic" gear and feats -- hence, the over-emphasis on Expertise, Focus, Improved Defenses and other "must-haves".
With the system I'm proposing, the arms race is still there; however, the difference is that because the system does not have any actual levels, the gap between the level 1 (1) newbie and the level 1 (30) is found not in the basic stats, but rather in what the level 1 (30) player has compared to the level 1 (1) player: * Number of feats * Number of powers * Number of class features * Variety of equipment
Heck, if I really was intent on removing the influence of level completely, I would've proposed that instead of everything being tied to levels, everything would instead be tied to equipment -- including powers, hit points, damage reduction and the like -- but even though that is technically possible even within the confines of the existing 4E, I would personally frown upon such modifications, if only because it would then have players placing not only too much value to their equipment rather than to their characters, but also placing the newbie at a far greater gap from the veteran than even what my system already places the two at.
Simply put: A level 1 (1) Wizard with 25 HP, 2 at-wills, 2 encounter powers (including the one granted by his theme), 1 daily, and 1 feat (Expertise)... versus a level 1 (10) Wizard with 30 HP (from Toughness), 2 at-wills, 4 encounter powers, 3 dailies, 3 utilities, and 6 feats. Too little benefit to leveling up?
@ chaosfang Hm.. removing bonuses to defenses, attacks and damage from feats is something I myself would not do, but I am interested in what effect it would have. 4e does seem to have to many "mandatory" feats, so taking stuff like expertise, improved defenses and improved initative out of the game is essentially giving some characters from one to five free feat slots to put something more focused on roleplay than just having the right numbers to make the game more fun.
Please compile a list of feats/feat benefits you'd remove from the game :D
I wouldn't remove any feat or feat benefits, per se. It's just that the fact that everyone is effectively level 1 means that the scaling bonus of just about everything is removed. In fact, the only reason why I'd even consider things like "gain fire resistance equal to half your level" or "equal to your level" to scale is because some of these features exclusively key off level or half-level, and nothing else, and if applied in the same manner as everything else in my proposed level-less system, it would result in those powers/features completely losing function.
An alternative compensation would be to change those powers/features and have them grant a static effect, instead of a level-based scaling effect, but that would require individual reviews and alterations
EDIT: If the ability scores simply altered ability and skill checks like in my other system, I wouldn't mind increasing them, but technically the ability scores seem to be there as part of the "math fix", so I'm still not so hot on having the level 1(30) Wizard having 28 INT versus the level 1(1) Wizard having 20 INT; that's a +4 to hit difference, even with the same gear, and that can easily lead to the level 1(1) player not being able to contribute so much, and unlike a weapon/implement-granted accuracy boost, there's nothing he really can do about it.
You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery.
To replace these feats, I think characters should get a +1 or +2 bonus to everything that should scale with leve at level 11 and 21. Why remove ability score increases? I think that is the most logical of all over-time increases
My train of thought was that the exercise pertained to removing D&D's level-dependence, while allowing players to retain a "feel" of progress. The most logical assumption is that instead of PCs progressing via levels, PCs instead progress via other venues or means. As games in general tend to grant more powerful items and additional features -- often attached to levels -- along with significant story progression, to help give the feeling of progress, in a level-less system we'd end up focusing on those additional benefits, instead of the now-absent levels.
Since there's no actual math to fix -- since same-level enemies will always be hit roughly 50% of the time, seeing as you're always level 1 anyway -- I see little reason to increase ability scores unless you remove the effect of ability scores on attack rolls at least.
At its simplest, without levels to actually gauge our characters, the alternative methods of progression would be
* items -- specifically Grandmaster Training, Divine Boons and other non-math fix bonuses, which I would highly recommend over +3 or higher weaponry and protective gear. * story -- benefits that may or may not have mechanical bonuses for the party (like infamy or respect, land ownership or what not).
The system I proposed aims to grant the third method of progression -- additional features, such as powers -- without actually increasing the character's level, since again we're talking about a system without levels.
You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery.
I understand now. We're not removing levels just for the sake of removing levels, but to lose this stupid "arms race" out of this system. Why would a roleplaying game need "math fixes" anyways? It's like saying "Yeah, we're thinking about making a roleplaying game with math... Well.. the math isn't all that perfect, so we might have to add a few fixes to it" xD
Enhancement bonuses are still here (or inherent enhancement bonuses, if that's your thing), so these things do scale, but they do not give the illusion of success (like these level bonuses and math fixes) nor do they take up feats that could be used for interesting stuff like Fey Cantrip or other flavourful feats.
Imma gonna go ahead and fix my first post (in blue, of course
Wow, I'm really impressed by the update And yes, since the feats aren't as mandatory as before, you could play a character from 1 (1) to 1 (30) with mostly flavorful feats and still be able to keep up with the rest of the group
The only class that still doesn't get fixed in spite of all this would be the Binder, but I never really was a fan of WotC's really shoddy attempt to capitalize on the potential to make a controller out of the Warlock (I might even end up making a homebrew class that I'd swap in if someone on my table wanted to play Binder).
You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery.
This "addon" does require a lot of custmizing on behalf of the DM. Mainly about damage scaling. Does sneak attack still scale, and other damage-increasers? Should we make monsters scale HP along with these features, or just not make these features scale... If if they don't scale weapons still and arms slots still increase damage...
What about 5-10 HP for each inherent bonus for monsters, depending on monster role (artillery,lure,brute etc.)?
When you read up on the Binder, and try to make one, then try to build the exact same concept using the regular Warlock, suffice to say that the Warlock does a better job at being a Binder than a Binder. Specifically because Binders tend to be ranged controllers, whose class features trigger when you reduce an enemy to 0 HP, or when an enemy adjacent to you is reduced to 0 HP.
A bit of conundrum that, and apparently the solution is to overhaul the class itself, as no system can apparently fix the Binder the way it's written.
This "addon" does require a lot of custmizing on behalf of the DM. Mainly about damage scaling. Does sneak attack still scale, and other damage-increasers? Should we make monsters scale HP along with these features, or just not make these features scale... If if they don't scale weapons still and arms slots still increase damage...
What about 5-10 HP for each inherent bonus for monsters, depending on monster role (artillery,lure,brute etc.)?
It's up to you whether or not Sneak Attack or other class features actually scale, since the only means for the DM to counteract the increase in damage is to increase the monsters' hit points, be it by increasing the monsters' level, turning the monsters into Elites/Solos, or raising the monsters' CON score; there's no actual suggested CON score per level, so it's actually quite legal to make a 100 CON level 1 Brute, which would grant him 120 HP, plenty of HP for Sneak Attack and other damage increasers to eat through.
As monsters would likely end up in the level 1 ~ 5 range, with abilities being the distinguishing factor between them -- save perhaps for deities and creatures you would want to establish as nigh-unkillable [then have a plot device reduce their HP, defenses and damage to level 1 when needed] -- the HP and damage factor may need some play-by-ear tweaking, a.k.a. playtesting
You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery.
Can somone, with more experience with the upper tiers, give the stereotypical stats of a level 30 monster, 1 standard, 1 elite and 1 solo. And then the same with a level 30 player, one with magic items, but no feats, and one with the feats (expertise, improved defenses)?
I was also wondering, why level 1? Why not level 2 or 4 or 11? Can a DM that has a regular group implement this ruleset simply by "freezing" his group's character level after the next time they level up?
About this races of numbers, there are two things you can do:
· Take out all leveling bonuses
or
· Ask your DM to make sure the monsters are created with the party in mind and not some "standard ruleset". This means the players can still use the online builder and the DM can use all offical 4e stuff without having to change any numbers.
As I said before, this levelessness is just an excercise, made for those with the itch to use something custom, and not something everybody should use. This is something only experienced DMs should consider using (especially those that have ongoing public events).
And yes, since the feats aren't as mandatory as before, you could play a character from 1 (1) to 1 (30) with mostly flavorful feats and still be able to keep up with the rest of the group 