These were my two issues:
1. I like my players to be able to use improvised and secondary weapons, but at high levels they need their first-rate weapon’s enhancement bonus to have a decent chance to hit. I also like to be able to drop my players fun loot whenever it’s dramatically appropriate, and not have to worry about treasure parcels or the enhancement bonuses they need for level-appropriate challenges.
2. I don’t like how monster stats scale faster than PC stats. Over the course of 30 levels, monsters gain about 29 bonuses to attacks and defenses while PCs only gain about 25 bonuses. As a result, surviving at paragon and epic levels requires players to power game, have the right kind of leaders and focus a lot of attention on tactics. Some players don’t mind this, but I don’t like to play games where fine tuned tactics, warlords or power gaming are necessary.
Here’s how I broke up and cut my baggage loose:
1. Masterwork armor does not exist.
2. Weapon/Implement Expertise, and any future feats that grant a constant bonus to attack rolls or defenses, are not allowed.
3. At the third and seventh level of each tier (3, 7, etc.), PCs get a +1 enhancement bonus to weapon/implement attack rolls, weapon/implement damage rolls and all defenses. They also get a 1d6 critical die at these levels, which does not stack with the critical dice of any weapon or implement they might have.
4. At the first and fifth level of the paragon and epic tiers (11th, 15th, etc.), PCs get an extra +1 level bonus to all attack rolls and all defenses. When a character wears heavy armor, this bonus doubles for the purpose of AC.
And I haven’t looked back since:
1. I can now drop loot whenever I want. If I want to run a low-wealth campaign, or if my campaign has a dry spell, I don’t have to rebalance monsters. Characters can now hope to hit with secondary and improvised weapons. It’s about the characters, not their bling.
2. PC stats now increase at a mostly consistent +1 per level, losing at most two relative points at certain levels. Optimizers, player tacticians and warlords can get higher bonuses, but they’re not necessary for high level survival anymore--they just make the PCs more effective now. Because PCs hit more often, there’s less grind and swing-miss repetition. And if I need to tweak monsters to make them easier or harder for my players, I only need to lower or raise their stats by a flat amount, rather than having to scale the tweaks with level.
Note: only slightly relevant
I have often thought in my Hero games of forcing the players to pay character points for all armor and equipment. Contrary to popular belief, that is not the default in heroic level play.
Your 1d6 Hand Killing Attack can be whatever you want it to be from a small, improvised shank to Excalibur itself. If you want to do more damage, simply put more points into your attack. With the proper application of Limitations you can still maintain the difference of someone who is an expert with all swords, someone who can use any weapon and Mr. Monk with his Karate Chop.
I have never actually implemented this idea because I think most players would scream bloody murder.
What do you mean my claymore does the same damage as his dagger?!
I have done something vaguely similar in the campaign I am currently running. Last campaign, the PC's complained that the only magic items worth having were ones that increased stats. So everyone had gloves of dex, cloak of charisma, belt of strength, amulet of constitution, etc. and no magic items that actually did anything cool. So, this new campaign we are getting +1 ability to two different scores every even level. Yeah pretty powerful, but noone can use any magic item that increases an ability. So, the PC's can use magic items that actually do something decent without being behind on an ability.
What do you mean my claymore does the same damage as his dagger?!
Hey, a dagger is as sharp as a claymore. Bigger weapons do more damage in RPGs just to give warrior-types an incentive to use them instead of teacups. (Except for the Riddick RPG, where you can take a special feat to be able to kill people with teacups.)
I have done something vaguely similar in the campaign I am currently running. Last campaign, the PC's complained that the only magic items worth having were ones that increased stats. So everyone had gloves of dex, cloak of charisma, belt of strength, amulet of constitution, etc. and no magic items that actually did anything cool. So, this new campaign we are getting +1 ability to two different scores every even level. Yeah pretty powerful, but noone can use any magic item that increases an ability. So, the PC's can use magic items that actually do something decent without being behind on an ability.
In 3e I used a simple point system that allowed my players to buy the bonuses that RAW PCs got through items. I was looking forward to not having to house rule item dependence out of my 4e games, but alas, I was disappointed.
What do you mean my claymore does the same damage as his dagger?!Hey, a dagger is as sharp as a claymore. Bigger weapons do more damage in RPGs just to give warrior-types an incentive to use them instead of teacups. (Except for the Riddick RPG, where you can take a special feat to be able to kill people with teacups.)
I have done something vaguely similar in the campaign I am currently running. Last campaign, the PC's complained that the only magic items worth having were ones that increased stats. So everyone had gloves of dex, cloak of charisma, belt of strength, amulet of constitution, etc. and no magic items that actually did anything cool. So, this new campaign we are getting +1 ability to two different scores every even level. Yeah pretty powerful, but noone can use any magic item that increases an ability. So, the PC's can use magic items that actually do something decent without being behind on an ability.In 3e I used a simple point system that allowed my players to buy the bonuses that RAW PCs got through items. I was looking forward to not having to house rule item dependence out of my 4e games, but alas, I was disappointed.
Technically the dagger was probably much sharper then the claymore. They didn't really put a razor's edge on those puppies.
:)