For the art party linked above I basically omitted PC ability scores - they rolled them using 3d6 but we just used that for description. I calculated the modifiers that ability scores factor into (skill checks, attack bonuses, etc.) based on  tables of NPCs I'd made up for the appendix of the Forgotten Heroes books. Basically this just meant that each PC was assumed to have a 16 in their primary ability score +2 for racial modifier, and a 14 in each of their secondary and tertiary scores. The result was a lot like the way I run OD&D, where the fact that someone is a fighting man counts for a lot more mechanically than what their Strength score is; whether this is a mighty character who gets by with brute force, or a feeble one who trains extra hard to compensate, is all in the roleplaying.

For the kids' birthday party I recently ran, I used the table in the Player's Strategy Guide. (That wasn't one of the sections I worked on, so I hadn't seen it previously). I reduced it a step futher by comparing the expected to-hit bonuses and defenses. My notes looked like this:

PCs need to roll an 8 or better to hit a monster of their level
Monsters need to roll a 10 or better to hit a PC of their level
Adjust by 1 for each level difference
Reduce the roll needed to hit by 2 if it's a weapon attack vs. a non-weapon defense

(The above is a straight translation of the PSG; what follows was my own back-of-the-envelope guidelines:)
Brutes are 1 easier to hit, soldiers are 1 more difficult
Adjust by 1 for an elite, 2 for a solo
Adjust by 1 or 2 if it's a strong or weak defense for that PC/monster

This achieved its desired purpose in that it sped up the game tremendously; as soon as the dice were rolled I knew what would happen, without the addition that takes a noticeable amount of time with adults and a potentially long time with kids.

There was a little friction in that some of the kids wanted to add up their bonuses:

THEM: "I roll a five, plus six is 11."
ME: "You miss."
THEM: "But Max hit on an 11."
ME: "That was on the dice, he didn't add his bonuses."
THEM: "Why not?"
ME: "I did it for him - your attack bonus was one of the things I wrote down when I looked over your sheets."

That was a lie. In truth, when I looked over their sheets I was reminded that the 4E mindset is very different than an 11-year-old's:

Q: How can you have a 3rd level 4E character who has two 20s in their ability scores, but still only a +3 to hit with their main attack powers?
A: You put the 20s in the abilities you think are awesome, and ignore the ones the designers think are supposed to be awesome if you chose that class.

Nice to see that even point buy doesn't stop fifth graders from cheating so that their characters  have the absurdly high Strength and Dexterity scores that warm their little hearts! Some things never change.

Quote from: Tavis;387247That was a lie. In truth, when I looked over their sheets I was reminded that the 4E mindset is very different than an 11-year-old's:

Q: How can you have a 3rd level 4E character who has two 20s in their ability scores, but still only a +3 to hit with their main attack powers?
A: You put the 20s in the abilities you think are awesome, and ignore the ones the designers think are supposed to be awesome if you chose that class.

Nice to see that even point buy doesn't stop fifth graders from cheating so that their characters  have the absurdly high Strength and Dexterity scores that warm their little hearts! Some things never change.

I consider that a valid design choice! This is a player that is choosing to rely on his basic attacks. Well, if he didn't realize that already, it might be worthwhile to remind him. My son's first swordmage was like this- Intelligence of 14 but a strength of 18. Whoops. But he could still hit! Just..using basic attacks.

So that -2 difference between a 14 and an 18 was enough to make him go to basic attacks? Interesting.

Quote from: Tavis;387247For the art party linked above I basically omitted PC ability scores - they rolled them using 3d6 but we just used that for description. I calculated the modifiers that ability scores factor into (skill checks, attack bonuses, etc.) based on  tables of NPCs I'd made up for the appendix of the Forgotten Heroes books. Basically this just meant that each PC was assumed to have a 16 in their primary ability score +2 for racial modifier, and a 14 in each of their secondary and tertiary scores.

Hi Tavis. I saw that blog from a link in your signature awhile ago - I couldn't remember at the time who wrote it, sorry, but thought it looked relevant.

For some reason your approach reminds me a bit of the system in the old 2nd Ed. Skills and Powers supplement- characters in that had two 'subabilities' for each ability score e.g. Strength had a Strength/Stamina score for how much a character could carry, and a Strength/Muscle score for beating the hell out of people. I suppose something like this could be used to rationalize why there are two sets of stats.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;387243OK...so Windjammer you mainly wanted to omit PC attribute scores? Just giving the PCs expected values, how do you cope with magical items that increase scores (implements, etc)?? It looks like magical item bonuses are expected to be built into the final scores here as well, since they're scaling +level, rather than +1/2 level.

As I said earlier, I drop the craptastic wish list system which has PCs getting their gear as planned and go for randomized treasure instead. Also, the 4th edition Realms isn't like the 3rd one where magic items shop are as frequent as Starbucks. The whole POINT of having fixed to-hit bonuses isn't just to help people uninterested in optimization to keep up - it's also (as far as I'm concerned) to positively turn off the crowd who engages in the number crunching thing.

And oh, yes all that stealth fixes like weapon expertise feats are gone from my games - these feats address the same issue that fixed to-hit bonuses do. Having both would be a sort of overkill. (I recall that some people on Enworld give weapon expertise etc. as a free bonus feat to everyone.)

Nothing, however, precludes the party finding +n weapons or implements if that's the outcome on a randomized treasure roll.

Quote from: Doom;387263So that -2 difference between a 14 and an 18 was enough to make him go to basic attacks? Interesting.

Offputting, I would say.  I would expect a Swordmage to do roughly equal amounts of swording and mageing.

Quote from: Tavis;387247Q: How can you have a 3rd level 4E character who has two 20s in their ability scores, but still only a +3 to hit with their main attack powers?
A: You put the 20s in the abilities you think are awesome, and ignore the ones the designers think are supposed to be awesome if you chose that class.

That's another houserule I considered - let people pick their primary to-hit ability at char-gen. There's already plenty of feats which let you exchange the ability which you read into your power's to-hit line (cf. Martial Power 2). So instead of feat-taxing that choice, and limiting the options for that choice to something a designer wrote in a book, I'd give that choice away for free and open it up to any stat the player wants his character to trade on when attacking.

This is a bit more complicated than the static to-hit bonuses assigned regardless of abilities, but it opens up the system considerably, especially as regards the class+race combos that are customarily deemed "workable".

Quote from: Doom;387263So that -2 difference between a 14 and an 18 was enough to make him go to basic attacks? Interesting.

Not so fast, amateur mathematicians of the universe!

It isn't about Either "optimize or you don't get to attack", it's often about something situational.

A 14 intelligence, 17 strength swordmage gets only a +4 to hit vs a +6. Chances are, both attacks will hit, but the +6 looks less likely to miss, and it will do 2 more damage. So it's just better. Right? maybe.. Maybe not.

having a great basic attack is a valid design strategy (especially for a swordmage) because it means two things: You can charge. Your mark ability is more reliable. (Marks trigger basic attacks).

Does this mean that all attacks from then on out will be basic attacks? Mathematically (if we were that obtuse and only considered the math alone) yes, but in reality, No. Because that advantage only applies when attacking a single combatant. And combat (even D&D combat) isn't ever that 2-dimensional.  

The same  swordmage who uses Greenflame Blade (as an at-will) is only +4 to hit, +2 damage.. BUT he gets to also do fire damage (which might be a factor- let's say he is fighting something vulernable to fire) and he also gets to do strength mod damage to all enemies adjacent to the target if he hits. Hey, that's worth the gamble if you are in a cluster of bad guys!

So suddenly you have a choice. If it's just a swordmage against a single opponent, not a big deal. Might as well go basic. But if it's a swordmage versus a formation of orcs?

Does he want to have a better chance to hit, do damage to this one target up front, or does he want to try and wear down the 4 guys clustered around the main target?

Other factors: Swordmages have an aegis assault. The Aegis assault is a BASIC ATTACK. Right? But it usually comes with a teleport. So teleport into a flank, and that basic attack is now at +8. Or spend an action point (or just wait for your turn to come up again) and the Greenflame is at +6 now. And next round that configuration is going to change, and change again as the battle field , the combatants, and the situation all react.

In the military we use a process called the OODA Loop.

Mobility and situation (and just about anything else..any factor) can have everything to do with how this stuff works. It's not just something we can scratch out on paper and go "well, the basic attack is empirically the one the player will always choose" just because it has a +2 in it.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;387294having a great basic attack is a valid design strategy (especially for a swordmage) because it means two things: You can charge. Your mark ability is more reliable. (Marks trigger basic attacks).

Of course, if basic attacks are so great, a character may benefit from the feat that lets them pick which ability score modifies their basic attack.
Then keep that until you can retrain it into Heavy Blade Opportunity and just kill monsters with your Mega-Intelligence.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;387295Of course, if basic attacks are so great, a character may benefit from the feat that lets them pick which ability score modifies their basic attack.
Then keep that until you can retrain it into Heavy Blade Opportunity and just kill monsters with your Mega-Intelligence.

Melee Training feats.

Here's a more extreme (real world) example: one of my own! Mischief, the kenku Warlock.


He has a 13 in his prime stat ( which is supposed to be Constitution.. he's a vestige warlock). But that Melee Training feat ends up in dexterity, because originally  in the background I came up with..he's a common street thief who "stole" his power. That's a nice background I guess, but in reality, I simply built him wrong and decided to keep him that way because I liked playing his "mascot" personality.

As he went up in levels, I did a) retrain his encounter power into a charisma-based attack, and b) adopt a very functional fighting style for him (curse+hand crossbow is a nice reliable tactic) and c) picked up the Melee Training feat, as well as a pact-blade (that bumps implement attacks by +1).

At 4th I am considering proficiency in the rapier, because I like the visual idea of how it would look. But I might choose something else. I dunno. I never make the decisions until I have to.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;387264Hi Tavis. I saw that blog from a link in your signature awhile ago - I couldn't remember at the time who wrote it, sorry, but thought it looked relevant.

No apologies necessary - I'm happy to see ideas spreading: the link back to the blog is awesome because the trackback pointed me to this part of thread, which I'd been avoiding overall due to  the sheer number of posts.

I don't know 2E stuff very well but one thing I love about D&D is that people have been doing stuff with it for so long that just about every idea you come up with will have some precedent in what's been done before.

One interesting thing about PCs need 8+ to hit, monsters need 10+ is that it highlights the PCs' superiority. In TSR D&D the advantage went the other way: a 4 HD monster had a better THAC0 than a 4th level figher, IIRC. I think the compensation here was that PCs tended to havemuch better ACs.

In working with the art-party pregens I'd noticed that the ranges of AC was much narrower and surprisingly distributed compared to my TSR or even 3E-era assumptions: a 3rd level rogue in leather might have an AC as good asa figher in scale with a 2-handed weapon, who was only two points better than a wizard.

Quote from: Tavis;387303I think the compensation here was that PCs tended to havemuch better ACs.

..or a squad of 10 hirelings.

"In 4E you call out the name of your attack power. In OD&D you call out the names of the henchmen who are attacking."

Quote from: Doom;387263So that -2 difference between a 14 and an 18 was enough to make him go to basic attacks? Interesting.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;387294A 14 intelligence, 17 strength swordmage gets only a +4 to hit vs a +6.

So, there is a 2 point difference, and that is why they are using basic attacks instead.

QuoteChances are, both attacks will hit, but the +6 looks less likely to miss, and it will do 2 more damage.

No, chances are the +6 will hit about 10% more often than the +4.  That is because +6 is bigger than +4, hence, the more desirable choice.  +6 looks less likely to miss because +6 is less likely to miss.

Should you be scolding 'amateur mathematicians'?

Quote from: StormBringer;387308So, there is a 2 point difference, and that is why they are using basic attacks instead.


No, chances are the +6 will hit about 10% more often than the +4.  That is because +6 is bigger than +4, hence, the more desirable choice.  +6 looks less likely to miss because +6 is less likely to miss.

Should you be scolding 'amateur mathematicians'?

No, I'm pointing out all of the other factors involved (attacks that affect other defenses, attacks that damage more than the enemy, or apply bonuses or penalties, or create or negate advantage, or synergize with other teammates or attack from range, or allow for more mobility, knock an opponent prone, allow for a stealth check, allow for a mark, take away a mark, cause an opponent to move, or take away an enemies ability to move, or any of a thousand other possibilities..

...and saying it isn't as simple as being less likely to miss.

Once again, I think you just respond to these posts because it's me saying them, not because you know what I'm talking about. I tried to explain it pretty simply above.