|
i have been playing in a couple of cracked out games. it not the typical types of games i like to play in, but some times its good to let the power monkey out. now, i already am well aware that many thing affect your characters ECL. higher than average stats make it were you can fight challenges higher than an average member of your level and class. its part of the game to choose the right feats and race/class special abilities to maximize your ECL. that is one reason munchkins do what they do, if you build a powerful enough character, then you can either fight average foes for your CR without breaking a sweat (therefore fight more than an average build class of your level, and get more EXP and level faster because of it) or Fight significantly higher CR's and get a butt ton of exp in one big heaping. this is not a problem for the mechanics to be in charge of dealing with, the DM needs to have big enough ego to allow exactly the amount of nasty into their games (if a DM wants to level characters fast should surely let them build cracky little monkeys, you may what to use medium experience track though)
i got somewhat off point. the game has a balancing element to its skill system. it makes sure that you cant put 4 levels worth of skill points into stealth and have +23 to sneaking at 4th level (making you all but invisible to everyone except the guy who put EVERY single skill point into perception ) why should i be allowed to build characters who have impossibly high AC's for my level? its just not balanced to be a 2nd level ranger and having a AC of 28, nothing will have a chance to hit me. same goes for attack rolls, DCs, etc. this numbers could be strategically placed to curb maximum power gaming, but allow for good builds to still shine. ive seen 1st level dwarves that couldnt possibly get hit by monsters in published adventures. sure, DM can easily say "sorry, your ac isnt compatible with the game im running" but it would be a whole lot easier to establish what is the high end armor class for different CR and ECLs, same for the range of attack rolls. i love the fact that in the create your own monsters section, general stats are just given for different CR's.
I dont know if this is a problem for any other gaming groups (impossible AC's) but i just wanted to address my groups problems with it.
|
I see what you're getting at; if the high AC is due to owning some overly-expensive armour or protective device, I would say yes. I believe that an overabundance of wealth should make the PCs count as a level or two higher. This would make them think twice about whether they need that uber-gear, or should they save up for a castle like PCs were always meant to.
If the high AC is down to a combination of feats and class abilities, does that mean they've left some Achilles Heel unguarded?
You may not get hit often, but your touch AC is rotten, your Will save is lacking, and you don't deal much damage, as you're always fighting defensively.
Do you actually need to punish the PC?
|
|
I would love to see a level cap for AC, Total To Hit bonus, and buff spell in effect(maybe 2 until you hit 5th, +1 buff spell every 5 levels). That would be a good way to reign in some of the idiocy that sometimes pops up in games, like the 10th level dude with a 35 AC, or a 5th level barbarian having a +20 to hit with a couple buffs, or some dude running around with 4 different buffs on at 3rd level and he can't keep track of what is doing what and what stacks.
Hmmmm.... I like the idea. Makes certain spells useful if they could take the bonus above the cap, like maybe True Strike, Shield of Faith, and Bardic music (makes the bard liked a bit more too).
I would love to see someone's idea of where the maximum values should lie.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I've long considered saying that the maximum bonus you can add to any die roll is your level +10 ... But I've never had a chance to playtest these caps.
It's an interesting thought. The bonuses above +10 come into play, because they still affect your roll if you engage in some actions that would normally lower your rolls.
So (let's use D&D 3.5 as a baseline rules set) if the 13th-Level Ranger charges (+2) with his 18 Strength and his +3 weapon and his bard buddy serenading him for another +3, he would still get an advantage from charging and flanking the opponent, because those advantages would allow him to power attack for 4 points and still get his Level +10.
Hmmm.
I wouldn't so much like a cap as a recommendation, much like the charts for monster CR recommendations. Something such as, "here's your level, this is the AC you should be hovering around. If it's (say) 2 points higher, consider bumping the monster's CR up by one to match the party/character. The reverse is also true."
Knowing the player side of the math equation helps as much as knowing the monster math to building CR, thinks I.
Overall, attack bonus is capped - you can't get better than +1/level. However, like skills, items, feats and whatnot can help you far exceed the base numbers. A problem in 3E is that you can stack too much on the bonus side; that's where the limit needs to be made, on the number of bonuses you can stack and how high those bonuses can go (opinion: spells or items that grant more than a +5 constant bonus are a big part of the problem).
I've always been disappointed in 3E that AC didn't grow with level except through the use of items & feats. At the same time though, it seems silly that a 1st level commoner can't hit a 20th level naked fighter, just because of a level difference (and it's an issue for me in 4E).
|
|
I would be okay with a chart showing preferred AC's for given levels, and the subrule that if your AC is higher than the highest recommended AC then your character receives one lower CR from monsters bested, (goblins normaly are cr 1/2, you instead get a cr 1/3 for defeating them)
I also wish for some sort of class bonus to AC, I really cant think of a way to make it work and not mess with key parts of the game mechanics...
There are supposed to be limiting factors in the bonuses granted by the spells and feats and such for your level, and the money you should have for your level.
Even if you focused all your money on one thing, you still shouldn't be able to "break" the system.
However, many game designers who wrote non-core material didn't follow this rule too well, allowing a lot of cheese to get into the game.
.
There is a game that does exactly what you are suggesting: Mutants and Masterminds d20.
You make a character based on Power Level (PL), and everything that has numbers is capped to within a certain range of that number.
So skills are capped at PL + 3, while attack and defense are capped at PL. So your total bonuses to Attack from all sources couldn't exceed the cap.
This includes damage and hitpoints. Instead you have a Damage vs Toughness check, similar to a saving throw, except that it has scaling effects based on how much you exceed the check, etc.
So you could have a Dexy person doing just as much "damage" as the Strong person, he just does it in a different way.
The game allows a certain trade-off, so you could artificially lower your Defensive cap and increase your Offensive cap by the same amount, etc.
Even this would be limited to a certain amount, so you don't get out of hand.
The rulebook even has a section on reintroducing iterative attacks, hitpoints, and leveling with experience, if you wanted to play the game more like D&D than a Supers game.
You might want to consider checking it out for ideas on this vein.
Heck if we are going to do this lets do it right and get back to THac0 and negative running AC.
Honestly I'm not crazy about this idea.
Why not cap Saves with level too? And why should someone that has a good build be punished by capping them at a certain level?
Why not cap damage?
It seems silly to me to claim that someone at a certain level can only hit an AC above a certian point 5% of the time regardless of their training and weaponry or anything else.
Finally where do you set this cap and how do you deal with the fact that wizards will ignore it by means of other defensive spells (blur, mirror image, et al)?
I understand that right now D&D can be reduced to something of a simple probability game. I don't think we need to make this worse by actually making it a full fledged exercise in probability & statistics by capping things off each level.
We don't have capped skills for level. You have a max skill point, and a maximum number of ranks for each skill, but you can still pile on masterwork tools, +2/+2 feats, skill focus and the like to increase the bonus.
Attack bonus is the same way: You get +1 (max) per level. All the other feats, Str, and the like is outside that.
Armor is a bit more lose, since anyone can wear full plate with enough money, if they're willing to tolerate the massive armor check and spell failure for nonproficiency, but there's still a fundamental limit of +10 (fullplate and shield), and it doesn't even go up with level. (Magic and the like still pile on top, of course.)
|
|
the benefit of min maxing your build is that you build a higher CR character than what was allocated. I have no problem not having caps, as long as it is understood that maximized characters are higher ECL than non maximized characters and need to get less exp from encounters
an easy way to do this is by making a simple addendum to the XP chart. if the combat was a total walkthrough with no real risk involved, then 1/4 listed exp. (now a clever in game plan that makes a combat easy should not be penalized as such) an easier than expected fight should give half experience, and a tougher than thought battle should give 50% more.
i just have a dislike that munchkinizing is so greatly rewarded in this game, while other systems have a more balanced reward system between roleplaying and combat.
I just want people to understand that all level 5 characters are not the same CR, some level 5 characters are combatwise 2 level characters while others can take on CR8's alone.
That, I agree with. The suggestion a few people have had about putting a chart of 'expected' ACs/Attack Bonuses/etc. for DMs to reference when building encounters or distributing XP is a good one.
But building in a hard limit where the extra plusses on your sword won't work anymore isn't a good idea.
What is the CR of an Iron Golem in regards to a 12th level Fighter with an Adamantine Long Sword. Now what is the CR of that same Iron Golem against a 12th level Enchanter.
Likewise is a CR 18 Demon really a challenge if the party just banishes it using a wish scroll they aquired last adventure.
CR is designed around the idea of a party. So the Fighter/Enchanter thing evens out.
As for banishment, that's a drawback of the Outsider type. The party still has to expend the spell/scroll/charge and have the baddy fail it's save and spell resistance.
I think the subnote on the XP table is a good idea. I'm wrapping up Shackled City, and the dwarven knight has been pretty much a dead ringer for "need a 20 to hit". Even the things that can hit her, can't power attack like they want to. She's been a perfect tank.
But it often irritates me because her player is a bit sketchy in the paying attention area, (she has abilities she's never used, because she doesn't look for opportunities to use them) and I notice the success of the PC is making her attention span worse. However, I think she would say "Yeah, its cool, its not like my PC is doing much" if I elected to only give her half XP for those encounters, as she is aware of how "broken" her AC is.
I also get grumpy with giving out full XP for a fight that should be hard or at least moderately challenging but a lucky crit/bad save kills it in round one. A new player took over Todd Vanderboren as his PC, but once he got 4th level spells, and the ability to use them to make "instant" death attacks, a lot of the other PCs found themselves with little to do in combat, or actually delaying until after him.
I realize this is partly due to the nature of death effects in general, but I've seen whopping crits from barbarians, warlocks, and archery rangers do much of the same. To say nothing of wizards with disintegrate and improved critical ranged touch.
|
Well me personally I'd rather have a level bonus to AC and attacks and subtract the reliance on magic weapons for those things.
I finally reached what I think is a workable balance in my house-ruled games: Base Defense/Damage Bonus (BDB).
BDB = 1/2 BAB.
For armor class and for all damage rolls, you add BDB. It's sort of like the Class Bonus to Defense in d20 Modern. And it's sort of like the Damage Bonus in Star Wars Saga Edition (SWSE).
It's been pretty easy to toss into the mix and hasn't been imbalancing . . . or at least as far as I can tell.
Now - a question. As I read 4th edition, you add Str Mod to your melee damage rolls and your Dex Mod to your ranged damage rolls. I haven't done this . . . yet. It seems appealing. But before I go farther, I wanted feedback from you all.