Some rules to make the level-based system work.

[User3]

Several things came to mind as a means of balancing the game.

1. Convert all status effects and circumstance penalties to ability damage or "ability negation."(A temporary decrease in stats due to conditions, which are removed when the cirumstances causing that condition goes away. An example is being prone, a condition that will decrease Dex that goes away when you stand up.)

2. Convert Ability mods to every point above or below 10 granting a 1 point mod, rather than the old system of 2:1.
When converting status conditions, this allows for people to become paralyzed, knocked unconcious, or killed if they take several different status conditions at once

3. Cap all rolls to a bonus mod of "level+4." Our examples are a 1st level guy can get a total of a +5 bonus to a roll, and a 10th guy can get a +14, and a 20 can get a +24. Bases to those rolls, like BAB, skills, base saves, ect, are unaffected.

4. Con now grants a natural armor bonus, and not a HP bonus.

5. Cross-class skills no longer are gained at double cost.

6. Only one "active" feat may be used per turn. They are feats that let you do things as an action of some kind, or gain additional actions outside or during your turn.

7. Numbers of attacks per turn is limited by "level/4, round down."

8. Spells are cast at a DC of "half character level +10"

9. Damaging spells are capped at a normal weapon damages, (from d4 to 2d6) plus level and stat mod, with caps at the same places(so a Burning Hands is capped at 5th level, with a definate max bonus of 5 plus stat).

10. Multiclass casters gains spells on a chart of character level vs classes with progression level, like this small, very rough, example:
. class with caster
X 1 2 3 4 5
Character
1 4/2

2 4/3 5/4

3 4/4 5/4/1 5/4/2

4 4/4/1 5/4/2 5/4/3 5/5/4

5 4/4/2/1 5/4/3/1 5/4/3/2 6/6/4/2 6/6/5/3

[User3]

I hate auto-format....

>>>>>>>.....class level with caster progression
>>>>>.....1 ..........2 ...........3 ...............4 ............5
Character
Level
1 ...........4/2

2 ...........4/3 .........5/4

3 ...........4/4 .........5/4/1 ...5/4/2

4 ..........4/4/1 ........5/4/2 ...5/4/3 .......5/5/4

5 .........4/4/2/1...... 5/4/3/1.. 5/4/3/2.. 6/6/4/2... 6/6/5/3

[Maj]

[random board code interjection]

Then use the [ code ] [ /code ] tag (without the spaces). It puts everything into fixed width font (but you should still preview to make sure it's perfect):

Code: Select all

[br]78-79	+34	9	9	9	8	8[br]80-81	+35	9	9	9	9	8[br]82-83	+36	10	9	9	9	9[br]83-84	+37	10	10	9	9	9[br]85-86	+38	10	10	10	9	9[br]87-88	+39	10	10	10	10	9[br]89-90	+40	11	10	10	10	10[br]91-92	+41	11	11	10	10	10[br]

[/random board code interjection]

[Catharz_Godsfoot]

I woulden't like to play a game like this, but knock yourself out.
You're basically just hogtieing a somewhat broken system and saying, "Fixed!" Plus, everyone is stupid if they don't take 1 spellcaster level.

And what, does a Wizard 1/Sorcerer 1/Druid 1/Cleric 1 have 16/16/4 total spells? Or have you done away with multiple spellcasting classes?

You might as well just say that every character does the same damage, has the same to-hit, has the same AC, the same HP, and the same spellcasting abilities regardless of what classes they choose.

[Edit] Damn, I sound bitter. Sorry. You do have some good ideas, and it would probably make for a more balanced system. I'm a fan of making ability scores into the ability mods, but that messes with ability damage. Doing away with the 2x CC skill points is certainly a good thing. [/edit]

[Desdan_Mervolam]

1095876688[/unixtime]]5. Cross-class skills no longer are gained at double cost.

Interesting. There are two ways to do this, and one basically amounts to making all skills in-class for all character. This actually could work, potentally, and I'd like to see campaign notes for someone who did this.

The other way would mean that cross-class skills are still capped at character level/2+2. This would have the plus side of granting more skill points to people who simply must take spot and listen and a few other skills for each character (Not A Bad Thing). The problem comes when you cross class. Does this mean that once a skill is in-class, that skill is forever in class? I'm not entirely certain how well that would work in game.

-Desdan

[Username17]

The class skill lists don't specifically have any balance point, near as I can tell. Removing their implementation would not be a bad thing at all.

"Cross-class skill costs" exist to force some kind of specific flavor considerations onto a character. Those flavor considerations are often inane, and there is something fundamentally wrong with saying "If your flavor isn't the flavor we want to see we'll make your character mechanically worse". Heck, that's definitionally imbalanced. Much better to grant no penalties to anyone and simply ban flavor you don't want in your game. That's pretty much the same thing, except you aren't making two people unhappy (one because he has flavor you didn't want in your game, and the other because his character is specifically underpowered).

---

That being said, setting maximum bonuses to "Level + X" is a bad idea. It means that characters of different levels aren't very different. It means that a 9th level character who has a piece of furniture to hide behind is better than an 11th level characterwho doesn't - even though the 11th level character is supposed to be worth two of the 9th level characters.

If you want to set maximum bonuses, it should be "Level times X" - because every level should grant roughly equal bonuses - to the first level. This would also get rid of the stupid first level skill points problem, and suchlike. Just make each and every level a +3 bonus or so. That way a character 8 levels up would be more than an entire d20 better than a character 8 levels down, as implied by the fact that the character 8 levels up doesn't even get XP for the lower level character.

Arbitrary maximums are workable, but scaling your maximums at 1 point per level is a joke.

-Username17

[User3]

And what, does a Wizard 1/Sorcerer 1/Druid 1/Cleric 1 have 16/16/4 total spells? Or have you done away with multiple spellcasting classes?

Well, I don't see why a spellcasting method and list can't just be a feat gained at level 1 of a spellcasting class, and the same pool of slots can't be used to power spells of different classes.

Several changes and rules would have to be enforced:

---Spells from a list would have to be cast by their method, so arcane spells still have failure in armor and divine spells don't, and Cleric and Wiz spells are prepped

---Sorcerer/Bard spells known can be based off of a similiar list to the one above, where you use "unprepared" slots to power Spells Known and "prepared" slots to cast spells off of the Wiz and/or cleric list

It makes life a little complicated, but its really the only way to let Wiz10/Sorc10 be viable instead of crap, as well as MyTh-type guys. the actual MyTh class would be redundant, since spell progression would come off of one list.

Class features like the Planar replacement levels would be need to encourage people to single-class in Wiz/Sorc classes(clerics would get fewer extra powers, since they get level bonuses like more turning, and bards would be mostly unchanged as they get better music with more bard levels).

The problem comes when you cross class. Does this mean that once a skill is in-class, that skill is forever in class? I'm not entirely certain how well that would work in game.

Why not? Some classes are already penalized by getting fewer skill points per level, so a fighter who takes a level of rogue to get Hide and Move Silently in-class already pays for the fact that all his fighting classes give him so few skills points and he's devoting all his points every level to keep those two skills competitive.

Just make each and every level a +3 bonus or so. That way a character 8 levels up would be more than an entire d20 better than a character 8 levels down, as implied by the fact that the character 8 levels up doesn't even get XP for the lower level character.

Arbitrary maximums are workable, but scaling your maximums at 1 point per level is a joke.

I'm not really comfortable with every level being a +3. That means that a 10th level character has a max AC of 40, which is not a limit at all.

It also means that a 10th level guy can wade his way through an army of CR 2 guys, regardless of any circumstances in their favor, and get XP for groups but never be in danger, which is a play-style difference.

I prefer a game where a guy can take some damage and get some XP from an encounter thats CRed higher due to circumctances like fighting groups of low level guys. also, I lprefer circumstances where a mid level guy can fight a lich and not be doomed to fail because he and his party had a good plan and didn't immediately have to wade through a 30 point advantage in AC, attack, saves, ect.

[Username17]

Wait a minute... you are seriously suggestion that AC be capped at like 14 for first level? WTF!? I thought you were just talking about bonuses, over and above the standard rubric of armor, size, and quickness.

14 isn't big enough for there to be a difference between "naked commoner" and "armored warrior". Those two states should be deeply distinct.

---

If you want things to be "balanced" without being "retarded", you're going to have to layer the bonuses (which are capped by level) on top of the "basics" (which are not explicitly capped at all). Otherwise you end up having various badasses who have no incentive to train - because their natural coolness and swell cuirass have them set for like two or three levels. And that's just dumb.

There can be a whole non-explicit basic AC bonus cap going on, where armors have a max dex bonus allowed and faster people wear lighter armors for maximum efficiency (although the drop off should be less than it is now, people should get a notable AC hike by wearing heavy armor regardless of their dexterity). But it shouldn't be so low that being "a halfling" all by itself ends up with you having more AC than you are allowed for your level. Being a halfling should not count against your basic level caps at all.

Same thing for damage. a +4 cap on damage at first level is just dumb. It has to be a level-based cap on damage on top of your basic damage chasis. So sneak attack (which is level based damage) can count against your damage level limit, but being "fairly strong" sure as hell can't.

Otherwise you are really severely screwing the half orc. Again. Some more. Whatever.

-Username17

[User3]

14 isn't big enough for there to be a difference between "naked commoner" and "armored warrior". Those two states should be deeply distinct.

Thats a play style difference. You like games where the PCs are anime gods who are invulnerable and normal people are peons who you tread beneath your heel. Lots of people like that gaming style.

I've just seen a lot of 1st level human fighters who started the game with ACs of 14 who had to sit next to the halfling rogue who, out of the box, had an AC so good that, unless a lucky 20 game up, he could kill entire orc tribes and never take damage. In my mind, thats not balance.

I like balanced games. You don't. Whatever.

Unless you cap max damage mods per level, and cap max hp per level, and cap max AC per level, some people in the current version of DnD are going to knock anyone of equal level past -10 in one hit and other guys are going to be doing "level appropriate" damage, and they can't even fight in the same combats.

You can't even pretend to have a balanced system if two characters of the same level can look so dramatically different that one guy can kill things 10 levels above him and the other guy can't handle crap at his own level.

Balance implies that two characters of the same level fall within a range of stats comparable to each other, and that they are of comparable power. Anything else is a cruel joke.

And yes, there are diminishing returns. Maxing out two stats so that you can roxxor everyone and suck at everything else is not encouraged by flat caps based on level+4. At first level, a maxed out warrior needs a few hits to knock out an average enemy, and that relationship continues based on the basic mechanics, unlike the current system where some 10th level characters have an average of 34 hp, and others have an average of 140.

[Username17]

I've just seen a lot of 1st level human fighters who started the game with ACs of 14 who had to sit next to the halfling rogue who, out of the box, had an AC so good that, unless a lucky 20 game up, he could kill entire orc tribes and never take damage. In my mind, thats not balance.

Except... that's just hyperbole. A halfling Rogue out of the box is limited to:

+1 AC from Size
+5 AC from Dex
+3 AC from Studded Leather (possibly +4 from a chain shirt, but you lose a point of AC from Dex so it's a wash)
--
+9 base.

That's a 19 AC. You can stack on that dodge for a +1 AC against some opponents, or a shield that you aren't proficient in for possibly as much as a +4 AC, heck, you can even fight defensively for another +2 (because there's no way in fvck that you have 5 ranks in anything and aren't getting a +3 out of fighting defensively at level one).

So... that's sort of true. You could have a total AC as a Rogue with a non-proficient tower shield and fighting defensively with the dodge feat of 26, which is in fact enough to make the 1st level Orcish Warriors (melee attack bonus of +4) only hit you on a 20. It's even enough to make the 1st level Orcish Barbarian hit you only on a 20 (since he has an attack bonus of +5), until he rages, in which case he'll hit you on a 19+.

Of course, to do that you'll be taking a -14 penalty on all attack rolls, which basically means that you aren't hitting anybody on anything but a 20 either, so there's not a lot of slaughtering going on anywhere.

---

On the far more likely chance that you are simply a halfling rogue with a max dex who sometimes fights defensively... you have an AC of perhaps 21. And the Orc Warriors hit you on a 17.

So because your anecdote was based on a pack of lies, I'm going to give it even less credence than I would have were it based on an actual anecdotal experience.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

1095876688[/unixtime]]
1. Convert all status effects and circumstance penalties to ability damage or "ability negation."(A temporary decrease in stats due to conditions, which are removed when the cirumstances causing that condition goes away. An example is being prone, a condition that will decrease Dex that goes away when you stand up.)

Huh? So someone could get paralyzed just by being prone if they have low dex?

2. Convert Ability mods to every point above or below 10 granting a 1 point mod, rather than the old system of 2:1.
When converting status conditions, this allows for people to become paralyzed, knocked unconcious, or killed if they take several different status conditions at once

Huh? How so?

3. Cap all rolls to a bonus mod of "level+4." Our examples are a 1st level guy can get a total of a +5 bonus to a roll, and a 10th guy can get a +14, and a 20 can get a +24. Bases to those rolls, like BAB, skills, base saves, ect, are unaffected.

Well you'd want to allow tactical bonuses like flanking as something extra on top of this, but you could do something like this and probably be ok. I'd raise the cap on AC though, otherwise the best you can possibly get is a 50/50 chance to avoid damage. Level +8 or +10 is probably where your AC cap should be.

Oh yeah, and it shouldn't be based on level, it should be based on CR or ECL. that way you control some of those absurd epic monsters and the collossal scorpion.

4. Con now grants a natural armor bonus, and not a HP bonus.

Don't see the point. Basically since your AC cap is so low, con becomes useless except for fort saves.

5. Cross-class skills no longer are gained at double cost.

Good change.

6. Only one "active" feat may be used per turn. They are feats that let you do things as an action of some kind, or gain additional actions outside or during your turn.

Why? Part of the paradigm of feats is generally that you can use them together and most "Active" feats are already limited in that they take a standard or full action, and you only get one of those per turn.

As for stuff that let you gain additional actions, I wouldn't allow those at all. Extra actions has never worked in D&D, and everytime someone adds something that lets people take more actions it turns out being broken. So no extra actions.

7. Numbers of attacks per turn is limited by "level/4, round down."

Well, TWFers get really hosed by this, and they don't need to.

I realize you're trying to control natural attack sequences, but I'm not quite sure how to do so effectively.

I'm thinking that maybe limit it just to the number of iterative attacks you get, unless you paid actual LA for the ability (instead of polymorphing). IF you actually paid the LA you should get to attack as normal.

But dont' cap normal attacks. Because two weapon fighters need that.

8. Spells are cast at a DC of "half character level +10"

Hmm... You should still factor in spell level, otherwise there's little comparitive difference between save or die spells.

9. Damaging spells are capped at a normal weapon damages, (from d4 to 2d6) plus level and stat mod, with caps at the same places(so a Burning Hands is capped at 5th level, with a definate max bonus of 5 plus stat).

Not really sure what you mean here... spells can't realy do weapon damages unless you're allowing iterative casting...

10. Multiclass casters gains spells on a chart of character level vs classes with progression level, like this small, very rough, example:

Seems like a pretty good idea, anything that gives MC casters access to higher level spells is a good thing.

[Username17]

If you want to control natural attack sequences and TWF to keep them from taking up too much time, you do it like this:

1. Everyone gets new attacks at the same rate, no exceptions.
2. Having "extra weapons" grants a to-hit bonus.
3. Having the "rend" ability or something similar causes your attacks to do extra damage.
4. People with multiple weapons have a limited form of whirlwind attack automatically (which costs to-hit and damage bonuses from multiple weapons/rend).

Done. The whole "monsters are covered with jank-ass weaponry" paradigm still does what it's actually supposed to (ie.: heap damage on the whole party), without doing what it currently actually does (take way too fvcking long to resolve and then pretty much kill individual player characters at the end of a bunch of die rolling).

The thing where monsters are allowed to (and therefore should) heap all these attacks they get on one enemy completely undoes the entire point of them even having all those attacks in the first place.

-Username17

[User3]

Halfling rogue:
+3 Studded
+5 Dex
+1 Size
+2 Heavy shield
+2 Fighting Defensively

Attack
+5 Weapon Finesss
+1 Size

AC: 23
Attack: +2

Orc, per SRD
AC: 13
Attack: +4 melee, +1 ranged

So yes, I overstated a bit. The rogue is getting hit on a 19-20 in melee and 20s in ranged, and the orcs are getting hit on 11s. If the rogue can stay at range and use ranged weapons, or gets cover, he can throw daggers, get hit on 20s, and not fight defensively or use a shield, and increase his attack to +6, and hit them on 7s.

I may have been thinking of the halfling Fighter, who has almost the same stats but can have an AC of 24 with Dodge and an attack of +6 with Weapon Focus, or an AC 26 and Att +4 with a Tower Shield who is still only getting hit on a 20 when he's flanked while he's hitting on 9s.

Now, if you want to use an Orc Barb with the elite array, thats a CR 1 orc who is still going to have lots of trouble with the halfling rogue at ranged, but may be a match for the halfing fighter if he can get within melee range and use his Rage.

Since the halflings are getting +5s to Init and have natural +9s to Hide without skill points(another +2 to +4), it really doesn't look good for the orcs here. With a little positioning and minimal luck, the out-of-the-box halfing can wipe out entire tribes solo for massive XP farming.

---------------------
More to come later in the day about the effects of the proposed changes.

[User3]

PS, the above halfing fighter has to pick Dodge or Weapon Focus, but not both.


-------------------
The system I've proposed in this thread use a base of abilty score 10, where every point above is a +1 and every point below is a -1(so a Str 6 is a -3, and a Str 17 is a +7.

Status conditions will cause ability damage, or "ability negation" which is a new term. Ability negation means that one the status condition affecting your scores goes away, you get the point back.

So, if you had a Dex of 2, two points of Dex ability negation like being prone will make you paralyzed. If someone helps you up, you get those points back.

This means that an average guy with a Dex of 10 who is prone(-2), entangled(-2) and flanked during combat(-2) still need 4 more points of Dex damage to paralyze him,a nd a low Dex guy of 6 would be efffectively paralyzed as he's on the ground, tied up and a few guys are taking minimal actions to prevent him from becoming untangled. Of course, if at some point any one of those things changes(like one of the guys takes a 5' step away), he's back at Dex 2 and can act again.

I'd also include the "ignore flanking" rules that let you not take the -2 from flanking to take AoOs from attackers who are not being considered flankers.

This removes the situation where you can continue to take penalties and conditions in a Scooby-doo like fashion until children can kill you with sticks, but you still get to make attacks and take actions. At some point, pain magic and nausea and exhaustion all that added crap should just kill or drop you.

This change in ability scores would require all the monsters to be rewritten, but they need that anyway to make them conform to a level system.

More later.

[Username17]

Dude, he isn't proficient in the heavy shield either. So upgrade that to-hit back to a 17-20.

Get the hell over it. He doesn't get hit very often, and joe Orc is doing 2d4+4 points of damage... when our Halfling Rogue has 5-8 hit points.

So the Orc hits 20% of the time, and drops our halfing in one hit. How the fvck is the halfling supposed to go through an entire orc tribe? He kills a guy or two, and then he dies. Real death, because even a single hit drops him.

There are many problems with the system, but this one isn't one.

-Username17

[User3]

Dude, he isn't proficient in the heavy shield either. So upgrade that to-hit back to a 17-20.

Please do me the courtesy of reading my posts before you reply to them. I've included the -2 from Shield nonproficiency. That's why he only gets a total +2 to attack. With Weapon Finesse, he adds Dex to attack rolls, so thats a +5, and size gives him another +1 for a total of +6 before penalties(-2 for fighting defensively, -2 for nonproficiency with heavy shields). Hitting an AC of 13 only requires a 11 if you have a +2. He can hit them on a 10 if he has a masterwork weapon.

So that means the halfling rogue is getting hit 10% of the time in melee, possibly 20% if he lets himself get flanked, and only 5% of the time in ranged combat while he hits orcs on 11s in melee, so he's hitting them half the time in melee while they are hitting him 1out of 10 times. If he uses ranged attacks, sneak attacks, hiding, terrain like dense forests, or doing any number of basic tactics, he's hitting more often for more damage and exposing himself to less danger. Just sitting in a tree forces the orcs to do rounds of climb checks or ranged combat where he gets hit 5% of the time and they don't get Str bonuses while he can get cover or concealment.

A little broken terrain can slow them down to 5' moves where he can pepper them with ranged fire the whole time.

Halfling fighters are getting the same bonuses, but with an additonal +3, or a +1 with tower shields for another +2 to AC. Weapon focus can add another +1, so that they can run around getting hit on 20s while hitting on 8s with masterwork weapons.

Sounds pretty unbalanced to me compared to what other characters are capable of doing.

[RandomCasualty]

1096045443[/unixtime]]
The system I've proposed in this thread use a base of abilty score 10, where every point above is a +1 and every point below is a -1(so a Str 6 is a -3, and a Str 17 is a +7.

See I just don't get this. You're trying to scale bonuses back, but you're making them ridiculously high by doing this. What is the point?

You're just saying "I'll give you this absurdly large bonus to attack, and then cap it so that everybody is the same."

This means that an average guy with a Dex of 10 who is prone(-2), entangled(-2) and flanked during combat(-2) still need 4 more points of Dex damage to paralyze him,a nd a low Dex guy of 6 would be efffectively paralyzed as he's on the ground, tied up and a few guys are taking minimal actions to prevent him from becoming untangled. Of course, if at some point any one of those things changes(like one of the guys takes a 5' step away), he's back at Dex 2 and can act again.

Huh? Flanked is a -2 to dex? So you can get paralyzed by someone flanking you? That makes absolutely no sense. The normal rules penalty worked just fine for tactical bonuses, I don't know why you're trying to turn them into ability modifiers. Being entangled can reduce your dex I guess, as that reduces your ability to move, but being prone or flanked doesn't prevent you from moving, and you shouldn't be able to get paralyzed by going prone.

I don't know what your fascination with ability damage is. It's a shitty mechanic in general IMO, and I'd prefer we moved away from it. Right now your hit points scale much faster than your ability scores, so ability damage just doesnt' work as anything except a quasi save or die effect now and it's pretty pointless.

It's also another pointless stat that we have to worry about for monster stat blocks. I'd really like it if we could go back to the old 2nd edition style of not listing monster ability scores. We can list the modifiers in the monster manual for monster PCs, but I'd like to get them out of the combat stat block, and we can easily do that by just eliminating ability damage.

Spells that you want to enfeeble monsters grant flat out penalties, and you just apply that to it's attack bonuses and not even care what it's strength was. If you want to be able to incapacitate with fatigue, you run something similar to what Frank was doing with his custom system, where you have a fatigue level of 10 boxes and you mark them off with increasing penalties. That's a fatigue mechanic that actually works. Strength damage does not.

Monsters really don't need ability scores. Maybe just strength for carrying capacity, forcing doors and such, but the rest is irrelevant and ultimately just factored in elsewhere.

This removes the situation where you can continue to take penalties and conditions in a Scooby-doo like fashion until children can kill you with sticks, but you still get to make attacks and take actions. At some point, pain magic and nausea and exhaustion all that added crap should just kill or drop you.

If this bothers you then you should really use something similar to Frank's injury system, it allows you to throw in all sorts of extendable conditions and rules. Like "15 boxes of damage of any type incapacitates you" or "two or more damage catagories of 5 or more incapacitates you".

D&D isn't based around taking people out of battle early due to penalties. Until you run out of hp or get slapped with some kind of outirght disabling condition you can keep fighting. That's what D&D is based on. I mean you dont' even take any penalties from being at 1 hp.

This change in ability scores would require all the monsters to be rewritten, but they need that anyway to make them conform to a level system.

Monsters don't even need ability scores.

They need normal AC, touch AC and flat-footed AC. They need an init score, they need attack and full attack bonuses, grapple bonus and saving throws, that's it. And it's simpler that way.

If a giant puts on a glove of +6 dex, we just know that his AC/reflex increases by +3, his ranged attacks go up by +3, and his init goes up by +3. And we don't really give a fuck about the rest of the shit. If we don't have ability damage we don't even have to worry about what his dex actually is. It's some relative number which isn't really important to any meaningful calculations.

[Lago_AM3P]

RandomCasualty, making monsters conform to the same rules as PCs and giving them a uniform (if flawed) system of advancement was one of the greatest ideas 3rd edition ever had. It also went an extremely long way towards making monsters more varied than 'moron who runs around in a dungeon', since you can have vampire clerics who pumped out diplomacy and have the entire kingdom in their thrall and the rare troll bard who wows even the celestials with his totally shtuppin' skill with a lute.


There is no way you can have this sort of creature diversity if monsters do not have stats. I do not support getting rid of monsters' stats. At all.

[User3]

Huh? Flanked is a -2 to dex?

Right. If you have a Dex of 2, you can't react meaningfully at all to two people attacking you. Ever wave your hands at a retard or a drunk or a small child? They don't react in any meaningful way as you confuse their reactions. They can't react to anything when you do that, effectively being paralyzed and helpless.

But, I think that cirmumstance penalties might need to remain outside the caps.

Right now your hit points scale much faster than your ability scores, so ability damage just doesnt' work as anything except a quasi save or die effect now and it's pretty pointless.

Con will grant natural armor, so HPs are fixed within the level based system.

Basically, ability damage is the only way deal with stacking penalties, otherwise you can walk into a room full of 60 Symbols of Pain and you could potentially end up with a -240 to attacks, skill checks, and ability checks. So for any sense of realism, a flat cap at some point is reasonable.

And different kinds of conditions need to stack for that kind of thing to work. Rather than adding a mechanic of eight different kinds of condition boxes to mark off, we can use the pre-existing mechanic of ability damage which works perfectly fine.

Monsters don't even need ability scores.

They need normal AC, touch AC and flat-footed AC. They need an init score, they need attack and full attack bonuses, grapple bonus and saving throws, that's it. And it's simpler that way.

Thats a personal play choice, but if you want to make balanced monsters who fit within the level system, they need ability scores, skills, and rules for advancement that follows my improved multiclassing rules so that a Yuan-ti Sorcerer isn't horribly penalized for his 8 humanoid dice and can actually be a viable mage villain.

You way is simple, but not good since you eliminate monsters as viable characters, and limit people to playing the archetypical monsters without variation or flavor.

Some people like to have monsters with a scry power way beyond their level and a glass jaw way below their level. If yyou like that play style, then fine. I prefer to beat monsters that are honest challenges. I'd rather fight a tough monster that was actually tough, not one that crumpled once the fighter hit it once or the mage hit it with a single spell (save or die magic also gets replaced by "save or ability damage," neatly removing one of the most broken mechanics in the game).

---------------------
Adding the bonuses to stats while keeping caps does three important things:

1. Allows characters to reach higher bonuses without elaborate systems of magic, feats, races, etc.

2. Allows for a greater margin of status conditions that a character can absorb.

3. Make small investments in stats mean something, so that your +1 every four level means something every four levels, instead of every 8 levels.

----------------------

The essence of caps for max bonuses is a very simple idea: a character of X level will have a power level between Y and Z.

If you can't keep power levels between within the range defined by Y and Z, you can't have a level-based system that means anything.

Options need to exist for characters of different shticks to compete. If two 4th level guys walk into this system, one could have a +8 AC mod from his Dex because he's so quick, one guy could have plate armor and his +8 armor bonus, and another guy can be a Conan type with a +8 natty armor from Con, and they can all play in the same game and be equal.

Four levels later the Dex guy can have his Quick Boots that adds +4 to Dex, the armor guy has +4 magic armor, and the Con guy has his Health amulet +4, and they can all be "maxed armor" characters that have the same AC.

I mean, try those concepts in the current game. They don't work at all.

[User3]

Damn, I so need an account so that I can edit my crap.

[RandomCasualty]

1096063161[/unixtime]]
Right. If you have a Dex of 2, you can't react meaningfully at all to two people attacking you. Ever wave your hands at a retard or a drunk or a small child? They don't react in any meaningful way as you confuse their reactions. They can't react to anything when you do that, effectively being paralyzed and helpless.

Huh? They can still run the fuck away and should be able to. It's pretty dumb if some guy can't move at all and becomes helpless just because some guy moved behind him.

Con will grant natural armor, so HPs are fixed within the level based system.

Basically, ability damage is the only way deal with stacking penalties, otherwise you can walk into a room full of 60 Symbols of Pain and you could potentially end up with a -240 to attacks, skill checks, and ability checks. So for any sense of realism, a flat cap at some point is reasonable.

Ability damage is always going to be superior to real damage in every concievable way.

Because you gain hit points, even without con 3-5 hp per level. You're gaining 1 ability every 4 levels, and that's probably to your best ability, not to your dump stat which you never touch. So you're looking at an 8 or a 10 which never improves.

Basically you have to grant a save for ability damage and at that point it's just a watered down save or die.

And different kinds of conditions need to stack for that kind of thing to work. Rather than adding a mechanic of eight different kinds of condition boxes to mark off, we can use the pre-existing mechanic of ability damage which works perfectly fine.

Only it doesn't, since squirrels and become paralyzed when they become exhausted. And a flock of stirge can pretty much wipe out the most powerful of heroes.

Thats a personal play choice, but if you want to make balanced monsters who fit within the level system, they need ability scores, skills, and rules for advancement that follows my improved multiclassing rules so that a Yuan-ti Sorcerer isn't horribly penalized for his 8 humanoid dice and can actually be a viable mage villain.

Actually if you want balanced PC monsters you pretty much have to say that they exist somehow outside the normal systems. You just can't consider those racial hit dice levels, because the moment you do, you are screwing your PC if he makes anything other than a fighter type. You really need custom PrCs for high LA monsters to make them work, and there's no real way around that. Monster hit dice and class levels cannot be considered equal becuase they're not. And this is a PC, so we aren't even talking about the same thing. I'm talking about monster, as in something the party fights.

But for DM preparation it's a lot easier to have a monster stat block that is as small as possible. And the only reason we have monster ability scores is because of ability damage. Eliminate ability damage and we save a line of stats for each monster and generally make our lives easier.

You way is simple, but not good since you eliminate monsters as viable characters, and limit people to playing the archetypical monsters without variation or flavor.

The existing system doesn't work, so who really cares? And anyway I don't have a problem wtih monster ability scores for monster PCs, but as far as the DM is concerned you shouldn't need ability blocks for your monsters. They're pointless.

Some people like to have monsters with a scry power way beyond their level and a glass jaw way below their level. If yyou like that play style, then fine. I prefer to beat monsters that are honest challenges. I'd rather fight a tough monster that was actually tough, not one that crumpled once the fighter hit it once or the mage hit it with a single spell (save or die magic also gets replaced by "save or ability damage," neatly removing one of the most broken mechanics in the game).

NOt really sure what this has to do with simplifying monster stat blocks... I'm not saying monsters should get weaker. The troll is still going to have the same HD, attack and AC, he just isnt' going to have a defined dex, con or whatever. And without ability damage we won't really care. He can still suffer penalties to his ability scores, they just never reach 0, and you just subtract -1 for each 2 points of the penalty, and it makes no difference other than subtracting a line from every monster stat block you write as a DM, which is a big time saver.

Options need to exist for characters of different shticks to compete. If two 4th level guys walk into this system, one could have a +8 AC mod from his Dex because he's so quick, one guy could have plate armor and his +8 armor bonus, and another guy can be a Conan type with a +8 natty armor from Con, and they can all play in the same game and be equal.

Not really, because the guy with plate armor has stats to put somewhere else, and the conan guy and the dex guy burned a ton of stats on con. But conan can't wear armor too because the cap bites him in the ass. So the guy with the armor gets to raise his wisdom and conan is sitting there wonder why he squandered all his points to save a little gold on not having to buy armor.

And I still have to ask... if you're doing that, then why have ability scores at all? Just make them a bunch of standard level based bonuses and let them describe where the bonuses come from. I mean that's where you're moving toward anyway. You expect everyone to be capped in terms of bonuses and your system is set up that way, so you might well just say every 3rd level fighter has a certain set of bonuses and he can break down the type of each bonus.

[Username17]

Please do me the courtesy of reading my posts before you reply to them. I've included the -2 from Shield nonproficiency. That's why he only gets a total +2 to attack.

I did you that favor. Fighting Defensively is a -4, not a -2. So I naturally assumed that the -4 penalty was from fighting defensively alone, and that you were creditting the rogue with a proficiency he didn't have. As it was, it turns out you were just smoking crack about the penalties for fighting defensively - which comes out to a pretty similar result.

So the Rogue can get a +0 attack bonus and onl be hit on a 19+ - and I'm supposed to care? Seriously, WTF are you smoking?

---

Regardless, your system is bullshit, because your initial stats don't stack with basic equipment. And you know what that means? It means people can have power now or power later, which is something you said was bad right here in this thread.

See, if you plan to be a low level character in a low level campaign, you don't give a fvck about con or dexterity, because they don't matter. You can replace them with basic equipment, so there's no reason for them to even be there. Your high stats should go into Wisdom and Intelligence even if you are a fighter - simply because that's the only place you can put high stats where it will actually mean jack shit at level one.

But consider the higher levels - if you didn't invest in Dexterity back at level one, it's eventually going to come back and haunt you when your other bonuses don't bring you up to max. Boy, you'll be sorry then, won't you?

Essentially, by putting the maximums on your swag plus your basic stats, you've put people in a position where if they want to be good in the future they have to be asstastic now. In order to make sure your bonuses pan out in the long run, you're going to have to accept having bonuses that are beyond the cutoffs in the here and now - so you'll be numerically inferior to other characters until you eventually start outshining everyone.

And that's all cocked up.

-Username17

[User3]

They can still run the fvck away and should be able to. It's pretty dumb if some guy can't move at all and becomes helpless just because some guy moved behind him.

A Dex of 2, under this system, models a person somewhere between "too drunk to brush his teeth" and "pre-toddler levels of balance." Flanking is a combat maneuver that assumes that two or more people are slapping you in the face and kicking you in the ass at the same time, or at least being willing an ready to do so if you see an opportunity(AoO). Thats pretty disorienting. Try it with your local drunken bum. Its funny and demonstrative. Flanking is not "some magical thing that happens when two dudes stand next to me."

I mean, at a Dex 2 you are taking -8 to things like Balance checks, so a slippery floor is putting you on your ass unless you have a lot of training (ranks in Balance).

Basically you have to grant a save for ability damage and at that point it's just a watered down save or die.

Sorta.

Yes, anything causing a condition already has a save.

However, if the average person has a 10, he needs quite a few failed saves before he gets paralyzed or killed since his penaties have to be bigger than -9 on one stat, and they have to attack the same abilities. Under this system, even the average 1 HD guy can absorb more loads more status condition spells than damaging spells, and until the later levels this will be true. Only at high levels will fighter types start having enough HP to stop 5-6 weapon attacks vs equal level ememies, but only enough stats to stop 3-4 spell attacks. And that makes sense to me.

Only it doesn't, since squirrels and become paralyzed when they become exhausted. And a flock of stirge can pretty much wipe out the most powerful of heroes.

Why can't a Squirel have a Con of 10 and Dex of 8? Under this system, you can have decent stats on small things and reasonable stats on big things. The above squirel has could have: HD 1, AC 10, 1-8 hp, depending on your feelings on squirels. You could give the Squirrell a Con of 18, if you wanted really healthy squirels, and instead of some monster super squirel with massive hp, you would get a AC 14 squirel with a Fort save of +4. The caps work for you.

With weapon damage capped, a 1st level guy will wound or kill the damned thing instead of autokilling it with any hit, which is much like life. Trained warriors with much larger capscan autokill it, which I'm OK with.

You really don't need tiny stats to represent small things or giant stats for large things. You only need stats that deviate enough from 10 to give the right penalties and bonuses for its level.

Monsters will fit into this system rather well. Giants can have a 24 Str at 1st level, since it can't use all that Str until 10th level. At 1st level you have your BAB of 0 or 1 and can use +4 or +5 of you Str.

Under the system I'm proposing, it should be easy to make 1-20 monster classes where they advance their core shtick(like Str on Giants) while still gaining class levels or monster HD.

Not really, because the guy with plate armor has stats to put somewhere else,

Not so. Armor has circumstance penalties to some skills, and the Max Dex mod Mod. While the Conan and Quickie guy can climb, balance, ect, get "uncapped by armor" Reflex save bonuses, the armor guy doesn't get those things. So while the Quicky or Conan guy is avoiding AoOs with Tumble, the armor guy is not, even though he's got stat points to burn.

[Username17]

At no time should being small and being tired stack up to being paralyzed. Emphasizing ability damage is emphasizig a part of D&D that does not work.

Ability scores represent many things in a sort of abstract fashion. A low dexterity can mean that you are slow, clumsy, or simply really big. A low strength can be a sign of weakness, fatigue, or just being small.

The ability scores don't have a one to one correspondance with anything, so when you do numeric damage to them, that makes weird shit happen like all the damn time.

Basically, you shouldn't cause damage to ability scores ever. It makes all kinds of edge cases go right over the edge and it doesn't actually do anything that couldn't be accomplished better with some absolute penalties to end results that take you out of combat at a specific time.

There's no good god damned reason why the very slow or the very small should arbitrarily become paralyzed when they find themselves in a disadvantageous position in combat. That's retarded.

-Username17

[User3]

Your high stats should go into Wisdom and Intelligence even if you are a fighter - simply because that's the only place you can put high stats where it will actually mean jack shit at level one.

Right.

At the levels when other kinds of bonuses become available, like bonuses from magic weapons, bonuses from magic stat boosting spells and magic, you can get them and keep your core proficiencies at peak.

And smart fighters are a viable option.

Some characters will be smart fighters who boost Str later in life, while others are strong fighters who boost Wis for magic defense later in life, or spend their magic item allotment on spell resistance or something.

In the end, everyone stays in the range of their level, and the choice of early levels won't penalize you later.

And thats only good. No longer will people be slaved to the "the only fighter is the Str/Dex/Con fighter with a Cha 6.

A guy who starts the game with an 18 Str has to wait an entire 3 levels to make use of all his Str. Is that a huge sacrifice? Are all games ending at level 3? If they are, you don't need this system, or even DnD. Get some Yatzee dice, because you are not cut out for roleplaying games.