Please Stop Putting Small Static Bonuses into 4th Ed

[Person_Man]

Cross posted on the Wizards forum. If you have a gripe that you'd like them to hear, I suggest bringing it there.

Looking at the various previews, I've noticed a disturbing trend:

The Elf:

Spoiler

Show

Group Awareness: You grant non-elf allies within 5 squares a +1 racial bonus to Perception checks.

The Paladin:

Spoiler

Show

Safeguard Smite
Paladin 1
Encounter • Weapon
Standard Action
Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Charisma vs. AC
Hit: 2x[W] + Cha.
Hit or Miss: An ally within 5 squares gains a bonus to AC equal to your Wisdom modifier until the end of your next turn.

Feats:

Spoiler

Show

Golden Wyvern Adept
Tier: Paragon
Benefit: You can omit a number of squares from the effects of any of your area or close wizard powers. This number can’t exceed your Wisdom modifier.

Playtest Report:

Spoiler

Show

Before we begin play, another player is giving Rich grief about one of Rich’s character’s abilities that grants the rest of us a blanket +2 to saves; it just ain’t sexy. Rich says something like, “I don’t know, I doubt I’ll use it that much, but who knows, maybe everyone in the party will get entangled.”

Sure enough, not 10 minutes later this fire-crazed flame priest has entangled half the party with fire snakes! Rich throws up his +2 to saves and, voila, at least two of us get free immediately. I guess that power isn’t so corner case after all.

Another Playtest Report:

Spoiler

Show

But then the first regular round started. Domna rushed a wolf and missed it, after shouting encouragement to her friends (providing a small bonus to them).

So, it seems as if certain races, classes, and feats will provide small static under certain circumstances. I think this is a horrible idea. Here's why:

Spoiler

Show

1) If such bonuses are widespread, it makes combat a bookkeeping nightmare. In a mid to high level game, each player could easily provide several different bonuses to a variety of different rolls. But because these bonuses have limited uses and/or range, you pretty much have to recalculate them every time you call for a specific roll depending upon where you might be standing in relation to the other players. There's nothing fun about recalculating math every round, and it could easily grind combat to a halt.

2) I have no idea how the stacking rules work in 4th ed. But if they are anything like the stacking rules in 3.5, then it can make calculating these bonuses a nightmare. For example, if you have a party of 1 human and four elves, does the human get a +1 bonus from Group Awareness, or a +4? If its the former, should other players be punished for playing an elf, because their ability doesn't matter if there's another elf in the party? Do we have to a similar conversation for every single ability that provides a bonus?

3) There is nothing fun or "sexy" about minor static bonuses. No one is going to play an elf because he provides a +1 bonus to Perception checks for his non-elf allies within 5 squares. But its a real benefit, so if its in the rules, a player won't want to ignore it either.

4) If given the choice between races/classes/feats that add minor static bonuses, and other races/classes/feats that add a new ability, optimizers will choose the latter. This puts newer players who don't know how to optimize at a significant disadvantage, just as they are in 3.5. I thought we were trying to eliminate this problem in 4th ed, and not punish players for making certain race/class/feat choices?

5) I'm assuming 4th ed is eliminating scaled bonuses like Power Attack and damage calculated by caster level. If it isn't, then minor static bonuses are even more annoying/laughable/useless.

There is no reason to keep minor static bonuses in 4th ed. They add nothing to the playability or enjoyment of the game, and may severely detract from it. If you do keep them in the game, at least eliminate the annoying aspects. Don't give abilities a small radius (for example, 5 squares) because then we need to recalculate our rolls depending upon where we might be standing, giving players an incentive to clump together and stand motionless instead of moving around on the battlefield. Don't make abilities only effect some players some of the time. Just makes them all day abilities, so that we can calculate everything once at the start of the game session, write it down on our character sheets, and play.

I've been playing D&D for almost 20 years. I love our hobby, and I like the direction WotC has been taking the game in 4th ed. But don't let this major design error get past you. There is still time to fix this. If you need ideas for better and more fun abilities, I'm sure there are thousands of players online at this moment who would be happy to give you suggestions.

Discuss.

[Saph]

Agree 100%. It is, as you say, a bookkeeping nightmare, and absolutely no fun to track in play.

It also practically guarantees in complicated combats that you will always get the bonuses wrong, because there is just no way you can keep track of that many +1s and -2s spread out in different combinations over 20 different actions. I hope they listen to you on this.

- Saph

[Theli]

The suggestion of all day bonuses is a good one. Just spending significant amount of time with an elf may improve perception... Nothing wrong with that.

Although I'm wary of the ridiculous "humor" that might arise from this...

("So Elven citizens have a 1000+ modifier on their perception huh. Hahaha. That's so broke. Hahaha." Well, assuming that it stacks of course. Which it probably doesn't.)

[Dragonmuncher]

Don't have much to add besides a "Me too!" post. The stacking thing is annoying, but really I hate the "unsexiness."

[Draz74]

It doesn't. It's designated a "racial bonus" for a reason.

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

Discuss.

There is not much to discuss. I agree completely.

I can start calling you names you old cheese head if you want to get into an argument?

[Flawless]

Yeah, those bonuses you gave as an example are really stupid. But not so much because they're small and static but - as you said yoursefl - because they are simply annoying with their area of effect and number. So let's hope WotC will recognize this as the horror it is (or seems to be, at least) and change it.

[Swooper]

Agree completely. Static bonuses are boring, useless and a waste of time.

[Aquillion]

Agree completely. Static bonuses are boring, useless and a waste of time.

Well, no, like someone else said... I don't think that the problem is that they're static, not if they've removed most scaling abilities. The bonus elves get on all perception-related skills themselves is a great flavor ability; not very important, but you jot it down on your character sheet and there you have it. It's not like you recalculate your entire base bonus to those skills very often, or frequently end up not being an elf. (Well, some builds will frequently stop being an elf, but then you probably want to have a seperate character sheet removing everything that is gone when you change form anyway.)

The annoying thing is small static temporary bonuses, ones that change constantly or only apply / don't apply under certain circumstances. Those do have to be recalculated frequently, and it's an annoying waste of time.

[Tren]

I don't see any issue with the bonuses being static. Though bookkeeping when it comes to things like 5 square distances from the elf and similar circumstances could become a real pain. That said we're still looking at incomplete mechanics, it might be much easier than what we're concerned about. And God forbid it does get into the final mechanics, it should be pretty easy to ignore

[KIDS]

I wouldn't agree with Wyvern Adept example but you are pretty much right. The concern never occured to me (in 3.5 it was a thing I learned to live with) but you seem to quite right on track; I'll add encouragement to your idea to the official forums.

[Theli]

Hmm, there are only 3 definite static bonuses listed in the OP... (Others are listed, by no specific mechanic information is available for them.) And all three seem like they could be handled by the DM.

It is quite possible that only the DM's job may be made more difficult by static bonuses. Although with the proper organization, they may be able to compensate for this...

For example, you have these buffs:
Group Awareness: +1 Perception bonus on allies within 5 squares. Only the DM really needs to calculate whether a player sees something or not. If they have all the perception values of the players listed in a row somewhere, there can be a note that there's a bonus for elven ally proximity.

Safeguard Smite: AC bonus to allies for a round when a paladin attempts this type of smite. Again, only the DM really needs to calculate whether a player is hit by an attack or not. If they have all the AC values of the players listed in a row somewhere, there can be a note that there's a bonus for a particular action taken by the Paladin that lasts until the end of that Paladin's next turn, if they are in within 5 squares when he does so.

Undefined blanket +2 to saves ability: Yet again, only the DM really needs to calculate whether a player makes a save or not. (Since they are now static.) If they have all the saves of the players listed in a row somewhere, there can be a note that there's an ability that can be used to modify it.

If they make static bonuses the job of the DM to keep track of, then they can keep the cost of entry for a new player low. And if they do a decent job of giving the DM tools to coordinate all this, such as maybe a well organized DM "party" sheet, then it may not be too difficult for the DM either.

As for "sexiness", considering how every class is getting loads of abilities/powers, and races themselves may gain some as the character levels, I don't think that there's going to be any shortage of that going around. And besides, it's hard to have a wide variety of abilities that can all be useful and don't overshadow each other... One can only do so much during a single combat turn.

[mostlyharmful]

Yes. Emphatically yes. Needless paperwork, rapidly becomes irreliant/overcomplicated, screws mobility/tactics and uninteresting compared to new capabilities/class features that can change how your PC behaves or what they can do. Hope they listen to you.

[Rutee]

...It's funny, the only one of those I really felt was in the "Annoying" class was the Elf one. The rest strike me as completely normal and utterly in line with what we already have. Am I missing something here?

[Sstoopidtallkid]

In all honesty, do we really need more of this?

[Artanis]

The Elf one and the Paladin one are certainly the sort of bonus you complain about, but I only see the Elf one really becoming a problem due to the fact that it's constantly on and people can go in and out of it. The Paladin one involves smacking a target with your sword and saying, "oh yeah, Bob, you get +3 AC this turn".

The Golden Wyvern Adept is irrelevant because it isn't a "small static bonus". What part of changing "I nuke everything" into "I nuke everything except Bob and Shirley" is a bookkeeping nightmare, as so many people have put it?

I can't tell one way or the other from the playtest reports. They may be the sort of "small static bonus" that is being complained about, or they may be quite easy to use in practice, even easier than the 3e Bard stuff that they seem to resemble. We can't really tell.

[Theli]

It's really less ""oh yeah, Bob, you get +3 AC this turn", and more "Ok, Bob you get hit. Oh wait, the paladin used his safeguard smite last round. Nevermind."

Yeah, it's a small distinction. But the point is that only the DM should be worrying about applying static bonuses in regard to proximity or power use. The players should be free to just play.

[Theodoxus]

But you're all forgetting the online help that's being married with the new system. I'm sure once all the variables are plugged in, and who has what running when, the computer will know what stacks and what doesn't; who's where when and how everything intersects.

Thus, I'm sure when the players options are up, you roll a d20, plug that number into your calculator and it spits out a result.


Now, for those not using the new fangled system, you're right - it'll be a nightmare, and will generate a debate for the group: 1) use the computer assistance as outlined, b) houserule out all the static bonuses or 3rd) muddle through all the math every time something comes up.

Theo

[Trog]

I disagree. It's no different that a character saying "I'm fighting defensively this round" and adjusting their armor class up a point or two. Or spells for that matter. Chances are each of the abilities will last either one round, an entire encounter, or an entire day. Not much to keep track of. I mean we have to calculate point blank range now and range for spells so what's the big deal?

[JadedDM]

Ahh, sounds like something for the boys on WotC to work on 'fixing' for the upcoming 4.5E.

[AKA_Bait]

Yeah, it's a small distinction. But the point is that only the DM should be worrying about applying static bonuses in regard to proximity or power use. The players should be free to just play.

That, for me, is a reason to avoid them. The fact that even MORE bookeeping will be falling on the shoulders of the DM is troublesome. I have more than enough on my hands as a DM without having to worry about bonuses that go in and out of effect as the rogue moves to flank for example. Stuff like that does slow down play in my game, and in every game I've played no matter whose responsibilty the bookeeping is. It's just a matter of if there is a delay/error when the player is doing math or when the DM is.

But you're all forgetting the online help that's being married with the new system. I'm sure once all the variables are plugged in, and who has what running when, the computer will know what stacks and what doesn't; who's where when and how everything intersects.

You know, I have this memory... fleeting memory of a program that came with the 3.0 PHB, was totally buggy and never upgraded. Now, maybe with 4e that will change with the online system, but I have serious misgivings.

Also, oddly, for most rolls, having used the computer dice roller and various programs I've found that with a group used to pen, paper and dice, pen, paper and dice actually is faster in gameplay. That might be because my computer is slow of course.

[Theli]

That, for me, is a reason to avoid them. The fact that even MORE bookeeping will be falling on the shoulders of the DM is troublesome. I have more than enough on my hands as a DM without having to worry about bonuses that go in and out of effect as the rogue moves to flank for example. Stuff like that does slow down play in my game, and in every game I've played no matter whose responsibilty the bookeeping is. It's just a matter of if there is a delay/error when the player is doing math or when the DM is.

What bookkeeping has there been for the DM? He has to keep track of initiative order, terrain, creatures, and any bonuses the creatures themselves may have. With proper organization, most of this should be trivial. (I've used index cards in the past.) What's left is story and plot, along with geographical matters.

I think a major benefit may be had in taking a lot of the stats out of the players hands. No waiting for spot and listen rolls. No waiting for save rolls. No waiting for the player to calculate their AC and indicate whether they've been hit by an attack or not. So any delay which might occur for the rare times when a DM flounders should be more than compensated for.

And I think that proper organization has a lot of potential to streamline a lot of things, including proximity bonuses.

[AKA_Bait]

What bookkeeping has there been for the DM? He has to keep track of initiative order, terrain, creatures, and any bonuses the creatures themselves may have. With proper organization, most of this should be trivial. (I've used index cards in the past.) What's left is story and plot, along with geographical matters.

I think you may have more time for organization of a game than I do. I have enough trouble finding the time to set up the plot, locations and personalities of the NPCs/Monsters. Having an hour or more to sit down and indexcard all the stats of the monsters I'm going to be using in any given game as well as all the rest is a luxury I and I suspect quite a few DM's just don't have.

[WrstDmEvr]

You know, I have this memory... fleeting memory of a program that came with the 3.0 PHB, was totally buggy and never upgraded.

Yeah, the character generation demo.

On topic, I completely agree with other people in the fact that it will create a complete mess when trying to do things.It will eventually end up like this

Leader: Okay everybody, make Perception checks
DM: You peer into the shadows and see a -
Elf: Wait, I'm dead. You don't get the bonus anymore.
Fighter: Oh, sorry. I hope that doesn't affect anything.
DM: ****

[Theli]

I think you may have more time for organization of a game than I do. I have enough trouble finding the time to set up the plot, locations and personalities of the NPCs/Monsters. Having an hour or more to sit down and indexcard all the stats of the monsters I'm going to be using in any given game as well as all the rest is a luxury I and I suspect quite a few DM's just don't have.

Well, more like indexing some player character details, the general layout of an area, what monsters/traps/loot is where, and what page of what book they can be found.

You don't have to copy every single little detail to get organized.

[Theli]

Yeah, the character generation demo.

On topic, I completely agree with other people in the fact that it will create a complete mess when trying to do things.It will eventually end up like this

Leader: Okay everybody, make Perception checks
DM: You peer into the shadows and see a -
Elf: Wait, I'm dead. You don't get the bonus anymore.
Fighter: Oh, sorry. I hope that doesn't affect anything.
DM: ****

I have to question how the dead elf knows that his bonus is what allows the other players to notice some danger. :p Especially considering how the buff is a whole +1. For something like this to happen it would be a rare thing.

It can think of a dozen instances in 3.5 where these kinds of retcons are significantly more likely due to the need for players to continuously recalculate their own stats on the fly while rolling. I still say that the removal of rolling and player involvment vastly simplifies those cases where these static bonuses are being applied, at least for those mechanical effects revealed so far.

Anyway, WotC does do play testing. They've shown that they are perhaps not the best at game balance. (Though this may have been a result of early design decisions which they've come to regret.) But they have expressed their intention of bringing the game to more casual players. So I'm not too worried about bookkeeping becoming a problem.

[psychoticbarber]

You don't have to copy every single little detail to get organized.

Excepting, of course, those of us who do. Different DMs are different people.

[Theli]

*shrugs* Sure. If you have all that time then more power to ya.



Or did you mean that some people HAVE to copy all those monster stats in order to get organized? I'm confused.

[Kurald Galain]

I wholeheartedly agree with the original poster.

I'd like to add that +1 bonuses really aren't that important on a d20 roll (they help exactly 5% of the time), which is evident in third edition because Weapon Focus really isn't that good a feat, and Skill focus and the Lightning Reflexes line (which already have been boosted between 3.0 and 3.5) still are sub-par enough that experienced players don't take them except when needed as prerequisites. Having a +1 bonus that applies some of the time is worse.

I believe the reason those silly "stand next to an elf to improve your eyesight" bonus exists, is to give novice players an incentive to stick together. Problem is, advanced players will realize that this bonus is rather trivial, and if you have to resort to such nonsense to keep characters together, you've got bigger issues.

I think this is like the Iron Star / Crystal Rod line in Magic: the Gathering. They are poor cards, that look like they're good cards; and hence beginning players use them, and part of their using them provides (ideally) the realization that no, they aren't good. The problem is, DND is not MTG.

[TheOOB]

I can defiantly see a reason for small static bonuses to exist, but they have to be pulled off correct ally. The trouble with most the listed bonuses is that they aren't static, their transitory. A feat that gives you +2 to your will saves isn't pointless, it needs to exist(even if under the current ruleset it sucks), if only so you can have that character who, despite being a fighter, has an "iron will". Likewise a small racial bonus to a skill, or a deliberate combat action you take increase your defense work. The racial bonus and feat work because they are always part of your character, and don't have to remember constantly, the bonus to defense(such as a full defense action) is something you consciously choose to do because you need more defense, and because it was your action you won't forget about it.

Other small abilities, especially those that effect allies, are more annoying then anything else. We all know of a certain comic where our favorite dwarf cleric misses a target, but when he is informed he gets a bonus due to the targets race from his racial ability, he hits with one attack, and when he is reminded of the bard song he hits with two attacks. These are bad bonuses. The dwarf bonus against certain races is pointless because is a forgotten byproduct of choosing a certain race. Unless your playing in a campaign entitled "the attack of the giants" I doubt you are going to play a dwarf based on those abilities, so they just sit there on the second or third page of your character sheet, waiting to be remember, adding to the book keeping with every attack(along with the constant "do I get my bonus here" questions). It's not like a ranger who has a class ability who explicitly lets them gain bonuses against a favored foe(thus say, allowing them to choose something they encounter alot), is just an arbitrary ability that is to small to be relevant, but not something you want to ignore.

A bard song or the elf bonus mentioned is much the same way. You probably remember the bonuses because you created the effect, but your allies don't have that written on their character sheets, at best it adds a statistically minor benefit to your side, at worst it grinds situations to a halt as you figure out your bonuses and reroll. A bonus used on a party had better last long enough and be consistant enough to have them keep a note on their sheet, or be significant enough to remember. A monk doesn't forget their mage armor spell because it lasts four hours, for that time it effectively becomes part of their character, likewise no one forgets they are hasted, despite having a short duration, because the spell rocks and is of great benefit, it acually does something.