Companion Characters as PCs

[rabindranath72]

Hi all,
I'd like to get some feedback and suggestions about keeping damage and defenses of PCs viable in the following scenario:
- I am going to use Companion Characters as full PCs, at least in terms of how many powers they get. But I do want to keep the half-level progression for attacks bonuses, AC and Defenses.
- I am also going to use the Fixed Enhancement Bonuses from DMG2 and Dark Sun to drastically reduce the number of magic items.
- Finally, I want to get rid of Feats completely (or only give at most 1 per tier, most likely tied to race.)

What do you think is a reasonable level-dependent bonus to apply across the whole 30 levels range, in addition to the above changes? The only issue I see is with Feats, so I came up with a blank +1 per 5 levels range (so maximum total +6) to encompass both the Fixed Enhancement Bonus AND the lack of Feats.
Does it seem right?

Thanks,
Antonio

[Yakk]

I am uncertain what your plans are and how you will judge success.

1) You want extremely simple PCs. May I ask why?

2) What kind of content (foes, adventures) and level range are we talking about?

3) Who is going to be playing these pseudo-PCs?

4) What pace of combat do you want?

5) What techniques do you want in terms of encounter building?

6) How do you keep players from being bored?

[FreddyNoNose]

Hi all,
I'd like to get some feedback and suggestions about keeping damage and defenses of PCs viable in the following scenario:
- I am going to use Companion Characters as full PCs, at least in terms of how many powers they get. But I do want to keep the half-level progression for attacks bonuses, AC and Defenses.
- I am also going to use the Fixed Enhancement Bonuses from DMG2 and Dark Sun to drastically reduce the number of magic items.
- Finally, I want to get rid of Feats completely (or only give at most 1 per tier, most likely tied to race.)

What do you think is a reasonable level-dependent bonus to apply across the whole 30 levels range, in addition to the above changes? The only issue I see is with Feats, so I came up with a blank +1 per 5 levels range (so maximum total +6) to encompass both the Fixed Enhancement Bonus AND the lack of Feats.
Does it seem right?

Thanks,
Antonio

Go for it. Nothing wrong with trying your experiment.

[Beoric]

I have had companion characters pull their weight in a party of PCs as long as they are built like MM3 monsters first, and then converted. I think that would be simpler than what you are doing.

I have considered using companion characters this way if a player wants to run a full monster that could not be pulled off as a refluffed character race/class combo.

[masteraleph]

Is there actually a reason to keep the half level progression?

From level 1 to 30 (29 levels), a PC would typically gain:

+15 to attack from 1/2 level
+6 to attack from Enhancement bonus
+4/5 to attack from ability score increases (4 normally, 5 if they take an ED that gives +2 in the primary stat)
+3 to attack from Expertise (or a free +1 per tier)

That adds up to 28 or 29 over 29 levels.

For defenses, the math is relatively similar for AC (due to Masterwork), and for your primary stat's NAD, and (presuming your secondary stat covers a different NAD) your second NAD as well due to Improved Defenses. The other NAD should only increase by about 25 because you're only going to get +1 from stat bumps, not +4 or +5.

Bottom line: adding +1 per level works pretty much fine. If you want to slow down that tertiary score, just don't give a bonus at level 10/20/30 or 5/15/25 or something.

You may need to up the power of their attacks, and will need to adjust the number of surges up and hit points slightly down as well.

I would agree with Yakk, though- what's the point of doing this? You can restrict them to simpler characters if that works for everyone, but it feels like a lot of work to simplify things slightly.

[rabindranath72]

Is there actually a reason to keep the half level progression?

From level 1 to 30 (29 levels), a PC would typically gain:

+15 to attack from 1/2 level
+6 to attack from Enhancement bonus
+4/5 to attack from ability score increases (4 normally, 5 if they take an ED that gives +2 in the primary stat)
+3 to attack from Expertise (or a free +1 per tier)

That adds up to 28 or 29 over 29 levels.

For defenses, the math is relatively similar for AC (due to Masterwork), and for your primary stat's NAD, and (presuming your secondary stat covers a different NAD) your second NAD as well due to Improved Defenses. The other NAD should only increase by about 25 because you're only going to get +1 from stat bumps, not +4 or +5.

Bottom line: adding +1 per level works pretty much fine. If you want to slow down that tertiary score, just don't give a bonus at level 10/20/30 or 5/15/25 or something.

You may need to up the power of their attacks, and will need to adjust the number of surges up and hit points slightly down as well.

I would agree with Yakk, though- what's the point of doing this? You can restrict them to simpler characters if that works for everyone, but it feels like a lot of work to simplify things slightly.

First of all, thanks everyone for chiming in; much appreciated.

Second, to give a bit of background: my group is the type that's perfectly happy with B/X D&D. In case you don't know about it, I'll just say that a B/X fighter is characterised by: use all weapons and armour; best attack progression (shared with demihuman classes), best hit points (shared with dwarf class), can set spear vs. charge. That's it. So, "boring" is really a subjective thing here. So they'd be perfectly happy playing characters of the same level of complexity of Companion characters.

I have run the first leg of a Dark Sun campaign using 13th Age, and the players have been fine with that level of complexity. I didn't choose AD&D 2e to begin with, because I don't have a lot of patience to run the psionics system (and practically all NPCs and monsters in Dark Sun sport some psionic power), so the plan was to use the 4e Dark Sun books, and convert monsters to 13th Age. However, monster conversion took longer than I expected, and not all conversions worked fine in practice. Due to some Real Life events, I won't practically have much time to devote beside preparing scenarios, so a change of rules was the easiest route.

In terms of PCs, the players said they would be happy for their characters to be limited to the powers that appear in the Dark Sun themes (for 13th Age, I simply translated themes into Background skills.) This means that over the whole character life, they would be limited to the page of stuff for each theme (plus Paragon path stuff if we ever reach that.) Note that some of those theme powers automatically upgrade to Paragon and Epic tiers, so the PCs wouldn't get more powers. I will allow more uses for powers according to the AEDU progression table to compensate for the reduced number of powers (somewhat like what happens in some Essentials classes) but I definitely don't want to add more options.

Now, I kept the half-level progression because it also feeds into the skills system, and I want the players to be able to choose ability score increases. Though I suppose I see the advantage of a straight +1 to attacks and AC/defences. But what do you suggest about damage? Perhaps keep magic-item bonuses to damage only? Or keep the "Intrinsic Bonus" damage progression as is? Do Feats need to be taken into account for the purpose of damage?

Oh, and if you have any other idea for "simpler characters", I'd be more than happy to hear it!

[Beoric]

Oh, and if you have any other idea for "simpler characters", I'd be more than happy to hear it!

I think a lot of the Essentials classes are simpler than what you are proposing. If your players are struggling with too many options, just limit the options available. Easier than building a whole new class structure.

[Dimers]

I kept the half-level progression because it also feeds into the skills system, and I want the players to be able to choose ability score increases. Though I suppose I see the advantage of a straight +1 to attacks and AC/defences.

You could also go with "your attack/defense will always be at least this level" while letting the players choose their stat bumps.


But what do you suggest about damage? Perhaps keep magic-item bonuses to damage only? Or keep the "Intrinsic Bonus" damage progression as is? Do Feats need to be taken into account for the purpose of damage?

For strikers especially, but really for all characters, average damage does need to increase with level or your fights can turn into slogs. Monsters gain an average of 8 hp per level, and common wisdom is that they should take between two and four hits to K.O. That means if your PCs' average damage isn't increasing by at least about 2 per level, combats will take longer and longer without getting more interesting. Items (including crit effects), feats and powers all feed that damage increase in vanilla 4e.

If you run mostly minions, there's little need to change. But for standard/elite/solo monsters, consider granting PCs a level-based damage bonus or reducing monster HP.

Or you could mess with XP standards instead. Granting more XP for defeating fewer or lower-level monsters would maintain normal level-up speed without making fights drag. Deliberately having PCs gain levels more slowly would also let you use fewer/weaker monsters. Giving lots of XP for quests, roleplaying, humor, etc. would again let you dial back the combats to what the PCs can handle without getting bored.

[rabindranath72]

OK, so let's say I keep the half-level progression, the players increase ability scores, I factor in feat taxes, and I use an approximate Inherent Bonus idea (not exactly the same progression but simpler) I get:

Level Bonus to damage/attack (+1/2 level)/defenses (+1/2 level)
1-5 +2
6-10 +3
11-15 +5
16-20 +6
21-25 +8
26-30 +9

I have assumed that there is a "feat tax" also for damage, and it scales as +1/+2/+3, is that actually the case?

[rabindranath72]

I think a lot of the Essentials classes are simpler than what you are proposing. If your players are struggling with too many options, just limit the options available. Easier than building a whole new class structure.
Simpler than what I am proposing? In which way? Companion characters look pretty straightforward, I am only proposing to replace the +1/level with +1/2 level, plus an offset. And no feats bloat.

Plus, I have looked at the PHB 1 and Heroes of the Fallen Lands, and I can't see this simplicity. Counting the "stuff" that they get, they are pretty similar if not outright equal. When there are differences, for example, the Knight gets more uses per encounter for an encounter power (Power strike), but then they get OTHER things in place of the additional powers; they are not powers, but they are still more rules snippets added to the character sheet. I don't want a character sheet occupying more than two faces of an A4 sheet.

[Yakk]

Just drop attribute as a bonus to attack entirely.

Your ATK is 3+Level, plus your weapon proficiency bonus (if any).

There are many rules in 4e that are all aiming to emulate that anyhow. They add complexity for complexities sake, because it *presumes* players want a game where building characters is part of it.

---

A second thing to note is that 4e assumes you have mastered the level 1 character before you reach level 2, etc.

You get a new combat ability every 2 or so levels. So you have had 20 combats (give or take) to get used to your old loadout. And then one thing changes.

Level 1 4e characters have 1 daily, 1 encounter, 2 at-will attack powers. They fit on one sheet of paper. Over the next 40 fights, each taking half an hour (so 20+ hours of play) you pick up 3 additional powers.

There is a problem is that it is possible to gimp characters.

---

Going for the companion character plan: use 13th age "your AC is a function of your class as much as gear", and presumed competence ATK.

Like Fighter: AC (Heavy) 16+Level move 5, (Light) 15+Level move 6. +2 with shield, +1 two weapon style.

Rogue: AC (Light) 16+Level move 6


---

For damage, I'd start from first principles. Your characters should be doing some fraction of monster HP per attack.

Monster HP is roughly 8*(Level+3). There are roughly as many monsters as PCs, and they are roughly the same level, or slightly above. We'll say they average 1 level above.

Combat should last about 5 rounds. You get about 4 encounters/day. From level 1 to 13 you go from 1 to 4 encounter attack powers, and from 1 to 20 you go from 1 to 4 daily attack powers.

If we want our encounter attack powers to be 2x as strong as at-wills, and dailies 3x as strong, and we have 2/3 accuracy, using an encounter attack is worth +1 "round" and a daily is worth +2 "rounds".

Baseline, without encounter/dailies, is Damage * 5 * 2/3 = 8(Level+4)
Or Damage = 2.4 * (Level+4).

If we pretend over 15 levels you gain 3 more encounters/dailies, and you start with one, then...

Level 1:
Damage * 6.5 * 2/3 = 32
Damage = 7.4
Damage/(Level+4) =~ 1.48
Damage/(Level+5) =~ 1.23

Level 15:
Damage * 10 * 2/3 = 152
Damage = 22.8
Damage/(Level+4) =~ 1.2
Damage/(Level+5) =~ 1.14

So we'll use the midpoint this as our rule. One damage token is worth 1.25 damage, and you get 5+level tokens.

Expected damage:
At will = 6+1.25*level
Encounter = 12+2.5*level
Daily = 18+4*level

A striker should do 1.5x this, and an aoe should do ~75%-80% of this.

This gives us these rules of thumb:
At-will:
Light: 4+Level
Medium: 6+1.25*Level
Hard: 9+2*Level

Encounter:
Light: 8+2*Level
Medium: 12+2.5*Level
Hard: 18+4*Level

Daily:
Light: 12+2.5*Level
Medium: 18+4*Level
Hard: 27+6*Level

Light is for AOE, or status-heavy single target effect
Medium is for Striker AOE, Striker status-heavy, and normal character damage
Heavy is for Striker single target

(I may have overbalanced daily powers at epic; they do 75% of a normal creature's life if they hit, and each of you have 4 of them at epic!)

For [W], a 2H capable martial character gets 6, a 1H martial weapon user or 2H simple gets 5, a 1H light martial or simple gets 4.

So:
Scoundrel has Sneak Attack feature
Light weapons deal 1d12 damage when you have combat advantage (so [W] is worth 7).

Combat Finesse:
Your basic attack deals [W]+Dex damage with light weapons, increasing by [W] at level 5, 9, 13, 17, 21, 25 and 29.

At-will, level 1:
Standard action attack. Sneak Attack: Make a basic attack against the lower of AC or Reflex.

Dash-and-Slash
Move action
Encounter attack power
Move your speed or shift half your speed. Make a basic attack at any point during the move or shift.

Execute
Standard action
Daily attack power
ATK vs Fortitude. Roll 1[W] and multiply by your (level+4), adding your dex modifier. If the target has that amount of HP or less, they are reduced to 0 HP. If not, the target takes no damage, and this power is not expended.
Level 21: If hits and fails to reduce the target to 0 HP, you may choose to expend this power and reduce them to their bloodied value instead.

You gain an additional use of this power at level 5, 9, 15 and 19.

Silver Tongue
If you can speak to someone for 1 minute without violence, make a Level+3 vs their Will check. If it fails, they do not notice it. On success, they enter the Scoundrel's Charm state. When someone is Scoundrel's Charmed, you may roll twice on any social skill check and take the better result. In addition, they will not initiate violence against you or your allies unless you or your allies first initiate violence against them or their allies. This lasts as long as they are in within 30', plus charisma bonus (min 1) hours afterwards. You may only try this on someone once per day.

There, that is a companion-style simple "Thief" rogue that should be able to do striker-level damage.

[Beoric]

Simpler than what I am proposing? In which way? Companion characters look pretty straightforward, I am only proposing to replace the +1/level with +1/2 level, plus an offset. And no feats bloat.

Plus, I have looked at the PHB 1 and Heroes of the Fallen Lands, and I can't see this simplicity. Counting the "stuff" that they get, they are pretty similar if not outright equal. When there are differences, for example, the Knight gets more uses per encounter for an encounter power (Power strike), but then they get OTHER things in place of the additional powers; they are not powers, but they are still more rules snippets added to the character sheet. I don't want a character sheet occupying more than two faces of an A4 sheet.

Try it and find out. Come back in a few levels and tell us how it went.

[dariathalon]

Simpler than what I am proposing? In which way? Companion characters look pretty straightforward, I am only proposing to replace the +1/level with +1/2 level, plus an offset. And no feats bloat.

Plus, I have looked at the PHB 1 and Heroes of the Fallen Lands, and I can't see this simplicity. Counting the "stuff" that they get, they are pretty similar if not outright equal. When there are differences, for example, the Knight gets more uses per encounter for an encounter power (Power strike), but then they get OTHER things in place of the additional powers; they are not powers, but they are still more rules snippets added to the character sheet. I don't want a character sheet occupying more than two faces of an A4 sheet.

As much as I love 4e, I think it really may not be the system for your game. There are plenty of systems out there in which characters can be made that simply. 4e is just not that system. And in trying to force it to be what it isn't you're creating a lot more work for yourself. You're saying you switched to this system to cut down on the amount of work involved, but it seems like you're actually having the opposite effect. While, yes, the changes you are proposing don't seem like they'd be too difficult to implement, their overall effects on game balance are difficult to judge without a lot of playing with them. So while it feels like you're trying to cut down on complexity later by doing some extra work up front, I think you'll find you'll still be doing extra fiddling with either the companion character stats you've designed or the encounters you set them against for months to come.

By trying to cut the characters down that much, I think you're also going to end up cutting away much of what makes 4e a great system while leaving the things that make it less than perfect in place. So I'm left wondering why are you sticking with 4e D&D? How much have you explored the rules-lite systems that are out there. I tend to prefer my games more on the crunchy side (hence why I like 4e), so I'm afraid I don't have the experience to point you toward a specific other option, but it is at least something to think about. Just my 2 cents.