Bumping 3 ability scores up instead of 2

[DragonBaneDM]

Hey playground,

So my longstanding 4E party has started a new campaign, and we're all being super experimental and homebrewy with it. We've been passing out inherent bonuses, building achievement points, transforming into primal spirits, building limit breaks, and redesigning rituals as skill challenges with varying degrees of success. Some experiments have stuck as regular parts of the game, some have faltered and died.

The newest suggestion was made when our DM noticed that each of us has an "auto-hit" NAD. The Artful Rogue's Fortitude and the Shaman's Reflex being some of these. They get hit on 5s sometimes now, and the way we're used to things going, that means getting hit on 2s come Epic Tier.

Our DM suggested boosting 3 ability scores instead of 2 every 4 levels/tier, and that was shot down by our Swordlock, who said this would be a bad move and that it would result in us being too tanky with too many surges or too tough to hit. The rest of the players don't care too much about the tweaks and game design choices the DM, Swordlock, and I make, but I'm sort of caught in the middle, and I'm trying not to let the "My ClerBarian will qualify for feats easier and get hit less" bias come into it.

I'm of the opinion that it's better to have one unhittable NAD than three good ones, but I also kind of hate how a build without the perfect tertiary stat or with two that affect the same NAD (Chaladin, Laser Cleric, Bow Bard) get utterly and totally stomped. It also makes feat slots dry up if you try and reinforce them, and math proves that it's just better to get offensive bonuses over defensive for the majority of builds. I'm also a really big fan of how this would open up Cha powers for the Swordlock, finally help our Shaman's AC, and keep our Rogue, WisWarden, and Wizard alive.

However, the auto-hit NAD is a good drawback for a maxed attack stat. Also, I don't want my DM frustrated in like 9 levels when a +5 combat can't touch us and he goes off the deep end into a TPK (Dealing with rocket tag last campaign was a big hurdle for us, I'd rather it not happen again).

How would you vote in this situation?

[Yakk]

There are other ways to approach this.

I'm going to go radical.

Hero bonus:
At level 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 you gain a +1/.../+6 Heroic Bonus.

This adds to your attacks and defences and damage on damage rolls.

(Note: this replaces inherent bonuses, but permits magic items with enhancement bonuses after a few changes.)

NADs:
Add both the highest bonus, and one half the lowest bonus, to the non-AC defence.

Enhancement Rules:

Weapon Enhancement: A magical weapon adds at most a +1 enhancement bonus to attack rolls. It grants its full bonus to damage rolls.
Armor Enhancement: Magical armor adds at most a +1 enhancement bonus to AC. MW armor bonus is not enhancement bonus, so remains. It also grants resist all damage equal to its full enhancement bonus (which stacks with the MW resist all damage).
Neck Enhancement: Magical necklaces and cloaks add a +1 enhancement bonus to non-AC defences, except the lowest defence you have where it adds the entire bonus+1. (The lowest defence is recalculated after each +1. If two more than once defence is tied, the order is W/R/F.)

(Basically, they no longer add +1 to 6 to d20 rolls or d20 DCs. Instead they add +1 capped.)

Item Bonus to Damage: Item bonus to damage items (as in, bonus is type item) are now 1/encounter powers that add that item bonus. (Yes, this nerfs those items, but you got them *free* with the heroic bonus above). You are free to collect as many as you want and use each 1/encounter.

---

Justification for the above changes:

NAD math after this change, compared to level 1.

Assuming Demigod like stat boost, you gain +2 to all stats and +8 more to two stats.

If your two high stats are on different NADs we get:
+1 to all NADs (stat)
+4 extra to two NADs (stat)
+15 to all NADs (half level)
+6 Heroic
+1 enhancement to all NADs
+6 to lowest NAD enhancement
=
+23 to all NADs base (15 level 1 enh 6 heroic 1 stat)
+6 to lowest
+4/+4 to two others
Assuming your high ones where 3 higher than your low one at level 1 we get:
=
+29.5 lowest NAD
+27.5 two highest NADs

And this is automatic. (0.5 comes from the fact that the non-high stat went up by +1, which is worth +0.5 in the NAD)

Any kind of feat investment will bump this up to +30.

If you lose your magic gear, instead of being crippled you lose 1 point on your high NAD and 7 on your low -- you are vulnerable in your low, but not completely gimped.

If your high/low are closer to each other, some of the low flows into the higher ones.

We can reflect this by adding up your *total* NAD boost over 29 levels as 84.5: the target for +1 per level is 87. Pretty close.

If you double-dip your high stat in one NAD, you lose 2 off your total NAD. You get one "nearly unhittable" NAD, and two easier to hit. I find this acceptable; a hero who pumps both str and con having an undefeatable fort seems reasonable.

Suppose we have a character with 18 str 16 con at level 1 who bumps both and goes demigod and has a +2 class bonus to fort.

Level 1: 10+4+1+2 = 17 fort (yum)

At level 30 has 28(+9) str 26(+8) con.

Level 30: 10+15+6+1+9+4(con)=45 fortitude.

High, but not game breaking. If they invest more -- a feat and an item -- they get 52 fort. At that point they are nearly unhittable.

The only way I can figure to break the game with this is a fighter brawler grappler. And even then, this only causes a 5 point swing in your fort above what you could reach before. Other than that, you just get an epic character whose fortitude cannot be overcome, but is still vulnerable to being hit with swords, mind controlled, and is only meh at dodging.

[masteraleph]

The only way I can figure to break the game with this is a fighter brawler grappler. And even then, this only causes a 5 point swing in your fort above what you could reach before. Other than that, you just get an epic character whose fortitude cannot be overcome, but is still vulnerable to being hit with swords, mind controlled, and is only meh at dodging.

Second Wind optimization (think Mul hybrid Warden).

[Yakk]

Hmm? Why does a high fortitude break the game there (or any given high NAD)?

[masteraleph]

Hmm? Why does a high fortitude break the game there (or any given high NAD)?

Not really high fortitude, just that it's already a way to end up with all unhittable defenses for a while.

[ThePurple]

How would you vote in this situation?

I already do this in both of my campaigns, but I have a lot of other houserules to go along with it that probably have a lot more impact.

The main reason I did it was to get rid of the laughable NAD that virtually every class has in the epic tier. A side benefit of it was that it also made it a lot easier to qualify for other feats though I can understand why some people would see that as a negative consequence (I see it as allowing more customization for my players because, otherwise, there tend to be a few specific build options that work well because they fulfill the specific stat requirements of the stats).

As to the "too tanky; too many surges" argument, the second half is kind of irrelevant because I have a houserule that allows players to use their highest ability mod (-1) to determine their number of HSs if they don't want to use CON, so everyone tends to have 10-12 HSs (before feats) rather than the large swings that normally happen. As to the first half of the argument, I run an extremely attrition focused campaign (I restrict extended rests to only happen outside of adventures rather than any time the players decide to sleep for a night; I also design most of my adventures to cover the entire level) that really forces my players to think defensively and think heavily about spreading out their resources.

Personally, I've found it to work out very well, even at higher levels when players really start feeling the missing points (especially, imo), so it gets my vote.

[DragonBaneDM]

I already do this in both of my campaigns, but I have a lot of other houserules to go along with it that probably have a lot more impact.

The main reason I did it was to get rid of the laughable NAD that virtually every class has in the epic tier. A side benefit of it was that it also made it a lot easier to qualify for other feats though I can understand why some people would see that as a negative consequence (I see it as allowing more customization for my players because, otherwise, there tend to be a few specific build options that work well because they fulfill the specific stat requirements of the stats).

As to the "too tanky; too many surges" argument, the second half is kind of irrelevant because I have a houserule that allows players to use their highest ability mod (-1) to determine their number of HSs if they don't want to use CON, so everyone tends to have 10-12 HSs (before feats) rather than the large swings that normally happen. As to the first half of the argument, I run an extremely attrition focused campaign (I restrict extended rests to only happen outside of adventures rather than any time the players decide to sleep for a night; I also design most of my adventures to cover the entire level) that really forces my players to think defensively and think heavily about spreading out their resources.

Personally, I've found it to work out very well, even at higher levels when players really start feeling the missing points (especially, imo), so it gets my vote.

Your style sounds similar to my DM's. As the person running the game: do you feel like this has made it harder for you to challenge your players in combats? How about skill challenges? How many combats typically fall before a short rest for you guys? My DM is telling me 3, which are always above current level and full of damage to keep plot and XP rolling.

[MwaO]

Not really high fortitude, just that it's already a way to end up with all unhittable defenses for a while.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?470119-Hyperpoxia-Ranger-Warden-MC-Monk-Soaring-Blade-Godmind

At the end, only Bahamut can hit the build with I think 1 power and that's only on a 19 or 20 on appropriately not Fort...

[baldhermit]

I have ran several campaigns for charoppers till mid epic, and having to design encounters till the edge of TPK was always an issue. However, it is relatively easy to make players feel more heroic (not the tier, the sensation) by making monsters easier to hit. That way only the DM, one person, needs to mess with the math.

Actually, between epic defenders and controllers, we had to set the rule that 18s and above always hit. (and that XP guidelines as well as XP based leveling were out of the question)


So while I certainly could see a benefit to lesser used builds to have an additional ability score boost, you could just as well approach it more or less like 5e has done, and cap your levels. In heroic, no one can have a score over 20 in anything, in epic no one can have a score over 24 in anything.

I would however suggest you start a new campaign if you're bringing such high impact house rules, because people deserve to know at character concept.

[ThePurple]

As the person running the game: do you feel like this has made it harder for you to challenge your players in combats?

I haven't really found it to be a problem, though I don't try to hit the players with particularly difficult (+3 to +4) fights until the tail end of the adventure (which I feel is dramatically appropriate), at which point the difficulty is as much caused by the resource restriction provided by the attrition from the previous 5-7 encounters as it is by the explicitly higher level of the fight (which I prefer to cause by the addition of more monsters rather that higher level monsters).


How about skill challenges?

I use skill challenges at least 1-2 times each level though I use *extremely* heavily modified versions of them. In general, failure at a skill challenge costs the party some healing surges or some GP so they still represent a resource expenditure.


How many combats typically fall before a short rest for you guys?

I give short rests between every encounter because that's what they're intended for. If you string multiple encounters within a single short rest, it's more appropriate to call it a single really high level encounter. I also tend to allow my players to have as many short rests as they want to have after a fight without bothering to account for the time (unless I explicitly want them to burn HSs inefficiently to make the players feel the time crunch).

Admittedly, I also don't do experience. I use it as a guideline for the number of encounters/skill challenges I provide during each adventure, but I don't have my players track it. I just tell them when they level up (a lot of what I do is built around cutting out the accounting inherent in a lot of D&D), which is pretty much at the end of a given adventure/dungeon/etc.

[DragonBaneDM]

I would however suggest you start a new campaign if you're bringing such high impact house rules, because people deserve to know at character concept.

No turning back now, compadre. Spent 4 years worldbuilding and getting my Ranger to 30, been spending the last 2 as a new character 100 years after that campaign.

Luckily it's a super easy change to implement in a super easy environment to make changes in. We just hit Level 8, so this is literally the only stat boost. So far we've had like 2 class changes and major overhauls for mechanics, and the game has continued to flow just fine.

Also Purple, dangit I meant long rests. Sorry, got distracted by hockey.

[ThePurple]

Also Purple, dangit I meant long rests. Sorry, got distracted by hockey.

I have a houserule that extended rests can only happen between adventures, since it doesn't really make much sense to me for characters to recover all of their resources by taking a 6 hour (4 hour, for some races) rest in the middle of a dungeon (or in the wilderness or in any other dangerous environ). In game world terms, I basically restrict extended rests to multi-week periods spent entirely in a safe environment.

A decent literary example for this change to the rules would be in Lord of the Rings when the hobbits rested in Rivendell as opposed to just taking a rest for the night. The rest in Rivendell was actually enough for the hobbits to fully recover from everything because they were in a very protected location with full amenities and spent multiple weeks there. Compare that to simply spending a night in the middle of the wilderness, which, at most, provided the equivalent of 1-2 HSs (which is what I'll sometimes provide to my players for a day or two of rest in a not-immediately-dangerous locale in the middle of an adventure).

The only reason that I can see for the "extended rest" (e.g. full heal and renewable resource reset) to occur every day rather than at a more sensible time frame is because the 4e devs didn't want to entirely abandon Vancian magic (which is straight up ludicrous and perpetually annoying to me; no one would know or remember Vancian magic if it weren't for that terrible decision made by Gygax and Arneson). From a narrative and practical sense, I think that my houserule makes a lot more sense.

This reduction in access to extended rests is the primary reasons why I have the "highest ability mod -1 for HSs" option for players to take; if I didn't, anyone who wasn't CON stacked would be screwed *hard* since they'd run out of HSs halfway through pretty much any adventure I throw them into (the other reason is to give players an way to stack STR instead of CON as a tertiary stat without screwing themselves out of one or more HSs).

I also have a houserule that, when they receive a milestone (which they generally receive at least 3-4 of during an adventure), instead of gaining an action point, a player can instead choose to recharge a spent daily power, in order to prevent my "no extended rests" rule from discouraging players from using their dailies. If anything, it encourages them to use them throughout the adventure rather than saving them all up for the final climactic fight. Balance-wise, it works out very well since daily powers tend to be on par with an action point expenditure (especially once you hit paragon tier and have AP boosts).

[DragonBaneDM]

That's a really cool system!

It's not exactly what my group does, and it sounds like they're hitting between 6-8 encounters during it, so the extra healing surges and hit points granted from your houserules seem to go a long way. My campaign seems to be a little less focused on that and a little "Here's 3-4 wicked tough combats for this story arc, then it's time to move to the next one", which honestly works for us, we all get bored if we've been in the same plane for 4 sessions, let alone dungeon.

I also like the trade off between action points and dailies that you've come up with, though now I'm curious: Does a player's choice often change when they get their Paragon action point bonus?

Heck, I'm just glad to see there's still groups out there who have taken an almost Skyrim-like "mod-it-till-it-breaks" approach to 4e.

[ThePurple]

I also like the trade off between action points and dailies that you've come up with, though now I'm curious: Does a player's choice often change when they get their Paragon action point bonus?

It depends upon what PP they enter into as well as party composition, since a PP with a really powerful AP augment (like Mythic Slayer, which provides a bonus MBA in addition to the action you already get with an AP) or the presence of a bravura warlord (which provides the capacity for an additional basic attack when you spend an AP) can make APs way more powerful, but, then again, there are also some absolutely obscene daily powers that can compete with that as well (Blade Cascade immediately springs to mind).

Overall, it seems to be about equal, with some characters/players generally preferring to recharge dailies and others that prefer to take the additional AP, which is kind of what I was aiming for with it in the first place. The biggest difference that I've noticed is that it actually encourages players to *use* their dailies when they know that the dungeon is going to be a long one, which is what I really wanted to see. Dailies powers often end up being "too awesome to use" if the players have a reasonable expectation of seeing something else down the line; if they can expect to get them back, however, they're much more apt to use them.


Heck, I'm just glad to see there's still groups out there who have taken an almost Skyrim-like "mod-it-till-it-breaks" approach to 4e.

I have an incredibly large number of house rules that I use in my games, and I've yet to see any players that have told me they have a problem with them (in fact, when I post that I'm looking for players, I generally get inundated with requests to join with my house rules being one of the reasons they were interested). Of course, I admit that this might be something of a skewed result since people who see the house rules and are immediately turned off by them aren't liable to send me a message telling me that, but it's worked out incredibly well for me.

If you're interested in seeing the complete list, I can provide a link and/or list of them for you to peruse.