Holy godballs, this must be how Jimmy Neutron feels.

[Psychic Robot]

So, yeah, it's late and I'm about to go to bed. But then I had a "brain blast" or some bullshit. And here I was shaving--yes, shaving! before bed!--and then my head exploded while I was thinking about the RNG and "fixing" 3e.

First off, allow me to ensure you fellows that I am well aware of my system inferiority to you. You guys are the MDs and I'm the kid who is still taking college courses. So if I sound retarded, it's okay to tell me that. And I won't feel butthurt.

Secondly, are there any threads 'round these parts that discuss in painful detail the RNG?

Thirdly, here's what I was thinking:

Right. Right. The other day I was talking in another thread with some of you, and somebody--maybe ubernoob?--mentioned the RNG and how 4e helps people to "stay on" it, whereas 3e had people get farther and farther "off" of it.

So this has to be fixed to keep the game viable at all levels, right?

Fuck. Yes, right. (Shit, I feel like I'm hopped up on something. My hands are all shaking and I'm quivering...wonder if I'm getting sick. No matter! I must post quickly before work, yes? YES.)

So what if, instead of things like BAB and saves and whatnot, classes just got a class bonus to things at level 1. And then these bonuses scaled by +1 every two levels or something.

For example, let's say we have the fighter, rogue, and wizard. (Again, this is just shit popping into my head. So I haven't even really considered the ramifications of any of it. But you guys are good at math and crap, so I know you'll be able to spot fail and win better than me, yes? Yes.)

FIGHTER: +5 to Fort, +3 to Reflex, and +1 to Will.
ROGUE: +3 to Fort, +5 to Reflex, +1 to Will.
WIZARD: +1 to Fort, +3 to Reflex, +5 to Will.

Not a whole lot of variation, but you see how it is.

Then we get to combat.

FIGHTER: +5 on attack and damage rolls, +5 to AC.
ROGUE: +3 on attack and damage rolls, +3 to AC.
WIZARD: +1 on attack and damage rolls, +1 to AC.

But these are all scaling, so at level 20, you've got characters with +15/+13/+11 to saves instead of +12/+6/+6. So they're more balanced, in theory. And even the wizard can sort of do combat with a +11 attack bonus. And he won't even necessarily die to something that gets ahold of him because he's got a +11 bonus to his AC.

Tell me if I'm going retarded or not.

[Leress]

From what I see you didn't really change anything. Except everyone now gets a bullshit AC bonus.

[virgil]

That's only for basic leveling aspects, right? There remains enough sources of bonuses for any one thing to make it such that they're off the RNG to someone who doesn't focus on it, unless you start digging like crazy to remove as many bonus sources as possible.

[SphereOfFeetMan]

Virgileso's right. If you remove all the bullshit bonus stuff in the game (mainly magic items and spells), then your level 1 bonus differences would matter.

Your attack/damage/ac bonus's create problems however. Multiclassing, roles, thf/twf, armor, etc all would create problems.

Here is a link to a thread that addresses saves, and is similar to your line of thought. Obviously I like my own idea best: http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=48842

[Murtak]

If you make the bonuses balance out to +/- 0 overall you can mutliclass to your heart's content.

Example:
Fighter +2 Fortitude, -2 Reflex
Rogue +2 Reflex, -2 Will
Fighter/Rogue: +2 Fortitude, -2 Will

Of course now you have to take care not to slide of fthe RNG due to bonuses. But you won't slide off due to leveling and multiclassing handles itself.

[ubernoob]

//

[Psychic Robot]

That's only for basic leveling aspects, right? There remains enough sources of bonuses for any one thing to make it such that they're off the RNG to someone who doesn't focus on it, unless you start digging like crazy to remove as many bonus sources as possible.

Right. So maybe stuff like greater heroism shouldn't exist. And maybe bards should be limited to giving +2 bonuses.

About multiclassing:

All of these would be "class bonuses," so they wouldn't stack. A rogue who took levels in fight wouldn't have a +8 bonus on attack rolls, for instance--and I figure that forcing characters to take the average of their bonuses would discourage nonsense.

[JonSetanta]

FIGHTER: +5 to Fort, +3 to Reflex, and +1 to Will.
ROGUE: +3 to Fort, +5 to Reflex, +1 to Will.
WIZARD: +1 to Fort, +3 to Reflex, +5 to Will.

Oh, you dickbutt.

Best not be stealin ma ideas for a classless Body/Mind/Speed setup! (joke.. it's so simple, it's hard not to come to that conclusion)

It's been done in Unearthed Arcana, though.
And you know, that BRAIN BLAST is sometimes a mild form of epilepsy, which would make even sense for Neutron if he was found to be BAP as well.

[RandomCasualty2]

Right. So maybe stuff like greater heroism shouldn't exist. And maybe bards should be limited to giving +2 bonuses.

Yeah there's no reason to have scaling buffs, and lots of the existing buffs should be removed since they serve no real pupose once you keep wizards on the RNG by default.

Scaling buffs are a horrible invention and just shouldn't exist at all. The only thing that should scale is damage bonuses.

[Psychic Robot]

So I made it through the day without being rendered senseless by a seizure, so I think the brain blast is over with.

Leress: What's wrong with people getting better at dodging as they level up?

[Leress]

Leress: What's wrong with people getting better at dodging as they level up?

Nothing, but as others have said when you add in the buff spells it sends them right off the RNG again.

Since the number doesn't scale then all you have is awesome AC at low levels and meh AC at higher.

[name_here]

frankly, i don't know how buffs are a good idea, because you have no idea weather the PCs will be buffed, or the monsters for that matter. so the PCs can hit 60%, 50%, or 40% depending on buff status if they are all +2 buffs and they normally hit 50% of the time. the same goes for the monsters, and if the monsters are hitting more often than expected that screws the party over, while if the party is hitting more often than expected, that can make it a cakewalk.

[Caedrus]

OP brain blast

I'm sorry, but...

How is this "brain blast" anything new (let alone revolutionary) in the ideas department? You give a fixed advantage on the RNG at level 1 and scale it. Heck, even 4e aims to do that.

All of these would be "class bonuses," so they wouldn't stack. A rogue who took levels in fight wouldn't have a +8 bonus on attack rolls, for instance--and I figure that forcing characters to take the average of their bonuses would discourage nonsense.

Sounds exactly like how SAGA does it for saves. Except now you made the dip benefit significantly larger, to a point it would most likely be problematic with all the stuff you made it apply to.

From what I see you didn't really change anything. Except everyone now gets a bullshit AC bonus.

Likewise.

[Talisman]

I like the basic concept somewhat - a big bonus at 1st level and everyone gets the same bonus on level-ups - but the implementation needs work.

For example, giving a fighter a +5 to hit and a wizard +1 at 1st level (then everyone gets +1/2 level or +3/4 level or whatever) successfully makes fighters better at fightin' than wizards without telling the wizard "never even try." The BASE numbers never get too far apart, although feats, magic items, spells and miscellaneous can spread the gap pretty damn wide.

What about multiclassing? A wizard 10 has a "BAB" of +6 in this rough system, and a fighter has +11. But a wizard 9/fighter 1 has +11 as well. The bonuses may not stack, but overlapping means the biggest bonus applies: the fighter's +5. Oops; sorry fighter.

One way around this would be to state that only the first class "counts:" a wizard 9 who takes 1 level of fighter would get all the usual "fighter" stuff EXCEPT base attack, damage, and save bonuses. This, of course, kills part of the point of multiclassing and handicaps gishes.

[Psychic Robot]

Well, here's the approach that I was going to take:

1. Class bonuses are typed and don't stack.
2a. Characters take the average of their bonuses if they multiclass. Multiclassed characters who lag in the direction of more than three levels (i.e., wizard 5/fighter 1 or fighter 7/wizard 3) take the bonuses of their higher classes.

2b. Drop multiclassing and allow for characters to switch their class bonuses to a limited extent. Provide feats that give "multiclassing" benefits, as in 4e. Provide a base gish class. (I should add that this approach is something I'm considering for "generic class" system, similar to the one in Unearthed Arcana.)

3. Sharply reduce the bonuses from spells and magic items.
4. Reduce the number of bonus types.

How is this "brain blast" anything new (let alone revolutionary) in the ideas department? You give a fixed advantage on the RNG at level 1 and scale it. Heck, even 4e aims to do that.

Because this is not something I understood as completely as I did when I was shaving the other day.

[Kaelik]

I have a better idea Robot, just play 4e since that's what you want.

[virgil]

Except that 4E removes everything else, and all that's left is hard numbers to keep you on the RNG.

[JonSetanta]

I have a better idea Robot, just play 4e since that's what you want.

You missed some details. He's passed many 4e concepts and out the other side.

Using a base Gish build for all characters, for instance, might seem more anime but it works as far as providing competency to all archetypes.
That's not 4e.
That's approaching classless if not thoroughly wallowed in it by now.

[Psychic Robot]

I have a better idea Robot, just play 4e since that's what you want.

Fuck you.

[rapa-nui]

Psychic Robot: It's a good idea I tried working with like 5 years ago. ( Shit you not... imagine my surprise when I read 4e)

It is the main design paradigm behind 4e, which is why people think it is a bad idea. But it isn't. The way I had it set up was that at character creation your character chose Good, Medium and Bad offense aptitudes (for example +3 weapons, +0 magic, -2 trickery) and Good, Medium and Bad Defensive Aptitudes (eg: +3 Will, +0 Ref, -2 Fort) and then everyone's aptitudes would increase by +1 every level. (And neither ability scores not feats/skills could push these base probabilities any further)

It sounds boring because a Lvl 1 Good Weapons guy trying to hit a Level 1 Good Reflex Guy has the same chance to hit as the same duo but both at level 20.

However, that's just the skeleton of the combat system. The main problem with 4e is that all the crap they layered on top of it is pathetically boring. If you could manage to layer interesting (and balanced) abilities on top of the 4e method of keeping everyone within RNG, then you'd have gold.

[RandomCasualty2]

However, that's just the skeleton of the combat system. The main problem with 4e is that all the crap they layered on top of it is pathetically boring. If you could manage to layer interesting (and balanced) abilities on top of the 4e method of keeping everyone within RNG, then you'd have gold.

Yeah, seriously.

Most of the fail of 4E was that the abilities just weren't very interesting, but the concept was sound. About the only thing I'd probably change is dumping the idea of an attack stat altogether and just setting people's attack to a fixed amount.

You only get to choose your defenses, but everyone is competent at attacking with any attack powers they may have. If you don't want to be a great archer, then you basically just don't take any archery powers. Having an attack stat basically just hoses people who multiclass, since you always want to max your attack stat anyway and multiclassing means you have multiple attack stats.

[Kaelik]

Well I think it's a crap idea because I want there to be variance in the RNG beyond "defense skill" vs "attack skill"

I want touch attacks that are nearly assured successes, or no attack role at all. I want variable AC vs to hit ratings as I advance, so hit ratios change.

I don't want "the RNG" to become: Flip a coin, you get what you want on a heads.

[RandomCasualty2]

Well I think it's a crap idea because I want there to be variance in the RNG beyond "defense skill" vs "attack skill"

Well of course there's going to be situational modifiers too along with other stuff.

I want touch attacks that are nearly assured successes, or no attack role at all. I want variable AC vs to hit ratings as I advance, so hit ratios change.

So you want the game to fall apart as you advance and people to get pushed off the RNG?

I don't want "the RNG" to become: Flip a coin, you get what you want on a heads.

A well scaling RNG doesn't have to work like a coin flip, it can work any way you want it to work. Like rapanui said, you could easily have a system that has three variables. good, moderate and weak. Lets even simplify it and take attack stat out of the equation.

So lets say everybody gets their three defenses, fort, ref and will. One is strong, one is weak and one is moderate. How big a bonus those each are is up to you. You could have strong defense be a -5 to hit, moderate be a 0 (or a 50/50) and weak defense be a +5 to hit. So basically now you've got either a 25%, 50% of 75% depending on what you target. And that's pretty significant.

Also factors like being higher level will bump all that stuff up as well.

It can be as varied as you want it to be. Hell, you could make them +10 and -10 if you wanted to. It all matters how much you want to encourage attacking a weak defense.

As far as autohit touch attacks, you could just make them autohit. Seriously. Just make it like magic missile but with a melee range.

[RandomCasualty2]

Well I think it's a crap idea because I want there to be variance in the RNG beyond "defense skill" vs "attack skill"

Well of course there's going to be situational modifiers too along with other stuff.

I want touch attacks that are nearly assured successes, or no attack role at all. I want variable AC vs to hit ratings as I advance, so hit ratios change.

So you want the game to fall apart as you advance and people to get pushed off the RNG?

I don't want "the RNG" to become: Flip a coin, you get what you want on a heads.

A well scaling RNG doesn't have to work like a coin flip, it can work any way you want it to work. Like rapanui said, you could easily have a system that has three variables. good, moderate and weak. Lets even simplify it and take attack stat out of the equation.

So lets say everybody gets their three defenses, fort, ref and will. One is strong, one is weak and one is moderate. How big a bonus those each are is up to you. You could have strong defense be a -5 to hit, moderate be a 0 (or a 50/50) and weak defense be a +5 to hit. So basically now you've got either a 25%, 50% of 75% depending on what you target. And that's pretty significant.

Also factors like being higher level will bump all that stuff up as well.

It can be as varied as you want it to be. Hell, you could make them +10 and -10 if you wanted to. It all matters how much you want to encourage attacking a weak defense.

As far as autohit touch attacks, you could just make them autohit. Seriously. Just make it like magic missile but with a melee range.

[RandomCasualty2]

Well I think it's a crap idea because I want there to be variance in the RNG beyond "defense skill" vs "attack skill"

Well of course there's going to be situational modifiers too along with other stuff.

I want touch attacks that are nearly assured successes, or no attack role at all. I want variable AC vs to hit ratings as I advance, so hit ratios change.

So you want the game to fall apart as you advance and people to get pushed off the RNG?

I don't want "the RNG" to become: Flip a coin, you get what you want on a heads.

A well scaling RNG doesn't have to work like a coin flip, it can work any way you want it to work. Like rapanui said, you could easily have a system that has three variables. good, moderate and weak. Lets even simplify it and take attack stat out of the equation.

So lets say everybody gets their three defenses, fort, ref and will. One is strong, one is weak and one is moderate. How big a bonus those each are is up to you. You could have strong defense be a -5 to hit, moderate be a 0 (or a 50/50) and weak defense be a +5 to hit. So basically now you've got either a 25%, 50% of 75% depending on what you target. And that's pretty significant.

Also factors like being higher level will bump all that stuff up as well.

It can be as varied as you want it to be. Hell, you could make them +10 and -10 if you wanted to. It all matters how much you want to encourage attacking a weak defense.

As far as autohit touch attacks, you could just make them autohit. Seriously. Just make it like magic missile but with a melee range.