What breaks if you remove half-level scaling?

[Rakaydos]

As the title asks. Monsters, of course, have full level scaling, and would need to be replaced with half level scaling to match. (yes, this means that odd monster levels do nothing) Skill DCs would also need to drop by 1/2 level based on assumed level of the challange.

But there's always hard-coded corner cases that assume the status quo. What would BREAK if you removed half-level scaling?

[Beoric]

As the title asks. Monsters, of course, have full level scaling, and would need to be replaced with half level scaling to match. (yes, this means that odd monster levels do nothing) Skill DCs would also need to drop by 1/2 level based on assumed level of the challenge.

But there's always hard-coded corner cases that assume the status quo. What would BREAK if you removed half-level scaling?

Do you mean essentially no scaling other than what feats, ability score increases and items give you? Well your level 30 DCs would have to drop by 15 points, which means most of them would be achievable by lucky level 1 characters with lucky level 1 characters with high bonuses. That is going to have an impact on the game.

In addition, the monster math assumes a certain difficulty in hitting (or avoiding being hit by) monsters, and that math would be badly messed up. Compare a standard monster to its equivalent minion 8 levels higher. They are supposed to be worth the same amount of XPs, but if the standard monster's HP stay the same but the equivalent minion is now much easier to hit (AC has decreased by 4) and still only has 1 HP, then you are better off fighting the higher level minion than the standard monster. I imagine you would have similar problems comparing equivalent XP elites and solos.

As I recall, the designers had a certain amount of difficulty in meeting the bounded accuracy design goal in 5e, so I don't think it is as simple as it sounds.

[neonchameleon]

At heroic tier I didn't notice anything. I've not tried it at paragon.

[Duff]

You should probably roll a d10 Otherwise you've effectively doubled the range on the dice.
So that means also dropping target numbers by 10

Hence the low level characters hitting high difficulty targets, squishing minions, etc

[MwaO]

As I recall, the designers had a certain amount of difficulty in meeting the bounded accuracy design goal in 5e, so I don't think it is as simple as it sounds.

They basically ended up using 4e/2 math exactly, just with significant amounts of fuzziness and uncertainty about exact numbers. If you don't actually have level-based increases, you get a lot of dumb outcomes. Such as a level 1 Rogue with a starting Dex of 20 by default being basically as good at doing Dex-based Rogue skill checks as a level 13 one with a starting Dex of 18.

5e realized that, implemented proficiency at the last second, and ended up with weirdo breakage anyway with bad defenses and scenarios such as a max Int Wizard 20 being capable of failing a DC 15 check 15% of the time where the average level 1 PC who dumped Int to 8 succeeding at the check 25% of the time.

[Kurald Galain]

But there's always hard-coded corner cases that assume the status quo. What would BREAK if you removed half-level scaling?

There's basically two philosophies regarding dice rolls. One is that an expert should pretty much always beat a rookie (which is used in 3E); the other is that a rookie will frequently but randomly beat an expert (which is used in 5E). 4E by default uses the former, your houserule would move it to the latter.

Whether that's a good or a bad thing depends on whom you ask. Personally I find the former approach feels heroic and the latter feels like slapstick. $.02

[Sneak Dog]

Your skills don't improve, and a level 2 cleric knows the same about religion as a level 23 cleric. A level 2 wizard knows almost the same about magic as a level 23 wizard (assuming the wizard took some intelligence increases).

[Rakaydos]

Your skills don't improve, and a level 2 cleric knows the same about religion as a level 23 cleric. A level 2 wizard knows almost the same about magic as a level 23 wizard (assuming the wizard took some intelligence increases).

That would, of course, be the intent. You would be relying on stat boosts, item boosts, and feats to increase your power, while levels would only contribute to your flexibility and HP. (and access to stat/feat boosts)

Should probably find a way to strip out some of the HP bloat, too- that's considered one of the weaknesses of high level 4E anyway.

[Ignimortis]

That would, of course, be the intent. You would be relying on stat boosts, item boosts, and feats to increase your power

But would they be enough to actually matter a lot compared to the d20 roll? That's a major issue with 5e which has lesser static numbers — a level 20 character still can lose at a thing they're good at (+5 stat, proficient) to an absolute 1st level nobody (-1 stat, no proficiency). And it's not even a once-in-a-lifetime occurence, there is a solid chunk of overlap in their probability curves.

[MwaO]

That would, of course, be the intent. You would be relying on stat boosts, item boosts, and feats to increase your power, while levels would only contribute to your flexibility and HP. (and access to stat/feat boosts)

Should probably find a way to strip out some of the HP bloat, too- that's considered one of the weaknesses of high level 4E anyway.

Fighter level 20: "Look, I've fought undead, demons and devils, talked to my god's literal servants for hours off-camera. Plus had the world's most foremost religious expert traveling with me for years(Wizard of party) explaining details every step of the way."
Fighter level 1: "That's amazing. I haven't ever left my home village."

When the default system outcome is the two of them have identical religion scores due to having the same attribute score or that the experienced PC by default has to spend resources to get better, both outcomes are really silly.

[Rakaydos]

Fighter level 20: "Look, I've fought undead, demons and devils, talked to my god's literal servants for hours off-camera. Plus had the world's most foremost religious expert traveling with me for years(Wizard of party) explaining details every step of the way."
Fighter level 1: "That's amazing. I haven't ever left my home village."

When the default system outcome is the two of them have identical religion scores due to having the same attribute score or that the experienced PC by default has to spend resources to get better, both outcomes are really silly.

Bear in mind that the level 1 fighter, with the same equipment, can hit some of the same undead, demons and devils, too. With some HP reduction, he might even get lucky. The lack of growth you see as "silly" is being repainted as "realisim," or at least a gritty verisimilitude.

[Kurald Galain]

Bear in mind that the level 1 fighter, with the same equipment, can hit some of the same undead, demons and devils, too. With some HP reduction, he might even get lucky. The lack of growth you see as "silly" is being repainted as "realisim," or at least a gritty verisimilitude.

That a level-1 fighter can defeat a level-20 demon or devil strikes me as the opposite of gritty, or for that matter of verisimilitude.

[Beoric]

That a level-1 fighter can defeat a level-20 demon or devil strikes me as the opposite of gritty, or for that matter of verisimilitude.

Right. But he thinks he can defeat the level 20 demon because of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

[Rakaydos]

Right. But he thinks he can defeat the level 20 demon because of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

More than that, a large number of L3 human guards would actually stand a chance against level 11+ drow warparties. they would be taking heavy casualties, but they can at least hit the paragon tier enemies.

[MwaO]

More than that, a large number of L3 human guards would actually stand a chance against level 11+ drow warparties. they would be taking heavy casualties, but they can at least hit the paragon tier enemies.

You do realize if you want to compare enemies that are not near the same level, the way you do that in 4e is by converting them into different monsters on the minion/standard/elite/solo scale, right?

So either make the L3 human guards level 11 minions or make the level 11 drow level 3 solos or elites depending on the level of the party and how the fight is set up.

[MwaO]

Bear in mind that the level 1 fighter, with the same equipment, can hit some of the same undead, demons and devils, too. With some HP reduction, he might even get lucky. The lack of growth you see as "silly" is being repainted as "realisim," or at least a gritty verisimilitude.

Also, let's look at verisimilitude's direct example in the Bounded Accuracy article...
DC 17 Iron Shod Door where in Next, a 16 Str PC needed a 14 and an 8 Str PC needed an 18.

i.e. the max str example in Next would succeed 35% of the time at opening the door and the weaker than normal person str in Next would succeed nearly half as often.

Does that strike you as a realistic example of Str in action at all? Gritty verisimilitude or frankly beyond silly?

[Beoric]

You do realize if you want to compare enemies that are not near the same level, the way you do that in 4e is by converting them into different monsters on the minion/standard/elite/solo scale, right?

So either make the L3 human guards level 11 minions or make the level 11 drow level 3 solos or elites depending on the level of the party and how the fight is set up.

Or for higher levels/numbers, turn every 5 L3 human guards into a level 13 swarm (or make 7 guards a L14 swarm, or 8 guards a L15 swarm, or 16 guards a L19 swarm, the possibilities are really endless).

EDIT: In theory, five 260 guard L34 swarms would be an even match for Orcus Empowered, but the size of the tokens (say, 10 x 10 each for tightly packed infantry, bigger for light infantry and archers) could get a bit unwieldy.

[icefractal]

I feel like if the scaling is removed, thirty levels is overkill. Why do we need to update the character sheet 29 times when our capabilities aren't changing much? And even in the rules as is, I feel like there are some reasonable arguments for compressing it to 15 levels with 1:1 scaling.

Heck, if you're talking about getting rid of HP/damage scaling too, why keep levels around at all? Just give everyone 1st level (or 5th, or whatever) stats, and then let them pick up additional feats, powers, and gear over time.

This is a large change to the system, but removing the scaling was always going to be one - it hugely changes what levels mean, what kinds of adventures make sense, how the PCs relate to the world, and so forth.

Oh, and I think it goes without saying, but this is 100% something you should make clear in the game's pitch. Someone who's expecting normal 4E may not be interested in this version, or at least would want to know about it before making a character.

[Boci]

Fighter level 20: "Look, I've fought undead, demons and devils, talked to my god's literal servants for hours off-camera. Plus had the world's most foremost religious expert traveling with me for years(Wizard of party) explaining details every step of the way."
Fighter level 1: "That's amazing. I haven't ever left my home village."

When the default system outcome is the two of them have identical religion scores due to having the same attribute score or that the experienced PC by default has to spend resources to get better, both outcomes are really silly.

But D&D has a DM who is human and can adapt, so they could handle that problem with:

DM: The icy corpses littering the ground suddenly twitch and start to move. Level 1 fighter roll religion to see if you've ever heard of these. Level 20 fighter, no need to roll, these are chillborn zombies, you remember facing them back in the Rolka Pennisular.

Then when it comes to things like the Cult of Vorri, which the 20th level fighter never encountered or cross paths with, it makes sense that they have just as much chance of knowing about the as the 1st level fighter.

[Beoric]

But D&D has a DM who is human and can adapt, so they could handle that problem with:

DM: The icy corpses littering the ground suddenly twitch and start to move. Level 1 fighter roll religion to see if you've ever heard of these. Level 20 fighter, no need to roll, these are chillborn zombies, you remember facing them back in the Rolka Pennisular.

Then when it comes to things like the Cult of Vorri, which the 20th level fighter never encountered or cross paths with, it makes sense that they have just as much chance of knowing about the as the 1st level fighter.

Being able to jury-rig a measure of functionality does not mean the underlying system is not broken. The fact that I could hitch a team of horses to car without an engine does not mean that the car could be defined as functional.

[Boci]

Being able to jury-rig a measure of functionality does not mean the underlying system is not broken. The fact that I could hitch a team of horses to car without an engine does not mean that the car could be defined as functional.

But in this example the engine is sillier than the horses. The original justification was:

"Look, I've fought undead, demons and devils, talked to my god's literal servants for hours off-camera. Plus had the world's most foremost religious expert traveling with me for years(Wizard of party) explaining details every step of the way."

Which doesn't sound unreasonable, until you remember the 20th level fighter is also adding, "Oh, and the same for arcana, dungeoneering, history and nature. I also payed close attention whenever the party face was talking, and played cards with the cleric and asked him to teach me how to catch someone bluffing, or find hidden things in general. I regularly challenge the party rogue to a circus off, and always payed close attention when they picked a lock, or snuck past a monster."

Which is not a terrible concept for a character, but shouldn't be the only one, whjich makes it a bad way to fluff the base system of +1/2 levels. I would argue that:

"Look, I've fought undead, demons and devils, talked to my god's literal servants for hours off-camera. Plus had the world's most foremost religious expert traveling with me for years(Wizard of party) explaining details every step of the way."

Better describes a 20th level fighter who at some point in their career acquired training in religion.

[Kurald Galain]

I'm not saying that adding half level to all skills is automatically the way to go, but this:

Level 1 fighter roll religion to see if you've ever heard of these. Level 20 fighter, no need to roll

suggests that the (proposed) skill system doesn't work, and that the DM has to actively remember when it does or does not work in order to compensate for that. Note that adding half level to attacks and defense is still very much required to avoid first-level characters killing epic-level demons.

[Boci]

I'm not saying that adding half level to all skills is automatically the way to go, but this:



suggests that the (proposed) skill system doesn't work, and that the DM has to actively remember when it does or does not work in order to compensate for that. Note that adding half level to attacks and defense is still very much required to avoid first-level characters killing epic-level demons.

Well, a. the DM should be doing what I proposed regardless of whether or not half level is being added to checks,

and B., whilst its not what traditional D&D aims for, there's nothing inherently wrong with low level characters being capable of killing epic level demons and higher level characters merely being better at it.

[Beoric]

Look, if you want to play a version of D&D with loose mechanics that basically don't work without DM interpretation, mechanics that barely scale or don't scale at all, stats on your character sheet that have no impact on the game outside of DM interpretation, a good deal of ruling based on narration with no mechanics at all, and a relatively flat power level where a clever and large low level party has a shot against high level monsters, you should just be playing the original 1974 Little Brown Books.

Nobody runs 4e or a 4e variant because they don't want a robust mechanical method of adjudicating actions. I think you are pitching to the wrong audience.

[Boci]

Ah yes, "the correct way to play D&D". There's nothing wrong with recommending other systems that might be a better fit, but players really need to get over the idea that there is a possible way to try and play or houserule the game that could ever be considered outright wrong.

[Nuptup]

Ah yes, "the correct way to play D&D". There's nothing wrong with recommending other systems that might be a better fit, but players really need to get over the idea that there is a possible way to try and play or houserule the game that could ever be considered outright wrong.

It's less about your suggestions being "outright wrong" and more about who you're suggesting them to. As he said above, most people who are drawn to 4e WANT a mechanically complex and intuitive game where most in-not-all situations are handled by the rules thoroughly. You are trying to "sell" your idea of a freeform "anything works" game to a community that traditionally specifically came to this system to avoid those kind of situations. What you're suggesting isn't "wrong" it's just not asked for with your audience.

--

On the main topic at hand though, I think if you wanted to introduce some form of bounded accuracy to 4e, you could successfully split monster level bonus but half, remove half level bonus from players, reduce skill/check DC's by half-level, condense player levels into 1-15 instead of 1-30 and just consider level "1" to be level 2 mechanically in terms of power selections, feats, etc., and when they level they jump to 4 mechanically, "2" on paper.

[Beoric]

Ah yes, "the correct way to play D&D". There's nothing wrong with recommending other systems that might be a better fit, but players really need to get over the idea that there is a possible way to try and play or houserule the game that could ever be considered outright wrong.

Yeah, you got me, that's exactly how I view the game. I prefer a Classic/OSR game running Basic, 1e and OSR modules in Eberron using the 4e system with several tweaks from the 1e DMG, wilderness exploration rules that mostly come from OSR-informed Expert rules, and the odd element of 5e. My mass combat rules are influenced by Battlesystem and ACKS but using 4e swarms for units (and powers influenced by acoup.blog), and my domain game has a 1e aesthtic but treats elements of the domain game, like titles of nobility and castles, as though they were magic items that grant item bonuses to skills. I use a custom injury mechanic based on the disease rules which kicks in on a failed death save, I modify the number of healing surges recovered depending upon the conditions in which you are camping, I only give 15-20% of experience for combat and make the other 80-85% come from treasure acquisition or other goal completion (and give out more than the required GP at low level to make it work because I found it breaks nothing), and I require characters to find people to train them between levels in order to gain new feats and powers.

I'm totally against houserules. They call me Mr. Conformity.

[Boci]

It's less about your suggestions being "outright wrong" and more about who you're suggesting them to.

I wasn't even suggesting it, I was merely pointing out that it is possible. All sacred cows must go when house rules are being considered. What makes a good game for millions of players which expected replay value in the hundred of hours minimum and what makes a good game for a single group that may only play it for 12 or so hours are two very different considerations.

I'm totally against houserules. They call me Mr. Conformity.

Never said you were against houserules, but you seem to be against houserules that try to change too much about the system (in your view), which I feel is an unnecessary limitation, and once we should shed when discussing house rules, even for 4th ed.

[Beoric]

I wasn't even suggesting it, I was merely pointing out that it is possible. All sacred cows must go when house rules are being considered. What makes a good game for millions of players which expected replay value in the hundred of hours minimum and what makes a good game for a single group that may only play it for 12 or so hours are two very different considerations.

Mechanics that are core to a system are not just "scared cows"; if you change them, that has a knock-on effect that requires you to change a bunch of other math too. With enough tweaking you could eventually have a functioning system, but it will be fundamentally different from the system you started with, and it will take a lot of work. And if you don't put in the work to adapt all of the subsystems that are affected by the change, you will have a system that does not work well at all.

Not having bounded accuracy is part of 4e's fundamental design. It is why you have minions, and standard monsters, and elites, and solos. Remove the half-level and you have to review its impact on every single other number in the game, and the fundamentals of monster design. It is not a cosmetic or superficial change that only exists because of fashion or tradition.

Never said you were against houserules, but you seem to be against houserules that try to change too much about the system (in your view), which I feel is an unnecessary limitation, and once we should shed when discussing house rules, even for 4th ed.

I'm about choosing the mechanics that best matches what you are trying to do with your game. Choosing a system that does not match your playstyle, when there are others that better match your playstyle, and then torturing the nonconforming system to make it run like the already existing system, makes no sense to me. I play 4e because kitbashing 1e and 2e didn't get me where I wanted to go.

Since we are on the topic, I have yet to see anyone advocating for dispensing with the scaling explain what exactly they are trying to get out of the change, other than "because 5e did it". I think if we knew what the point was, it would be a lot easier to determine if it was worth the mess it would create.

[Boci]

Choosing a system that does not match your playstyle, when there are others that better match your playstyle, and then torturing the nonconforming system to make it run like the already existing system, makes no sense to me.

But, it does to other people. Changing some fundamental aspect of the system can be fun. Its not for everyone and is tricky to pull off, but that doesn't make it wrong, or not worthwhile if that is what you and your group enjoy. There can be any number of reasons why you're altering one system instead of switching to another, and some of them are valid reasons.