Levelling the Power Curve

[SableWyvern]

As I have mentioned elsewhere, I'm not happy with the standard d20 distribution of power when applied to the sort of game I want to run with Conan.

After an interesting post by S'mon that mentioned capping level progressions, I gave a lot of thought to the implications of higher level characters in the game world, and came to the conclusion that the exponential increases in power worked contrary to what I am looking for in a gritty game, which is what I want Conan to be.

While the Conan version of d20 goes some way to levelling this field with its use of a lowered massive damage threshold and increased weapon damage, I do not believe it has done enough to suit the style of play I am looking for.

At the same time, I do not want to impose too many limits on feats and special abilities available to the PCs. Thus, I am looking at implementing the following alterations to level progression:

For levels 1-10, there will be no change, except for HP progression, which will follow a fixed progression for all levels, as follows:

Level......d12......d10......d8......d6
1..............12........10.......8.......6
2..............10.........8........7.......6
3................8.........7........6......5
4................7.........6........5......4
5...............6..........5........4......3
6...............5..........5........4......3
7...............5..........4........3......2
8...............4..........4........3......2
9...............4..........3........3......2
10.............4..........3........2......2
11+...........4..........3........2......1

(d12 included for monster HD).

This results in exactly an average hp gain over the first ten levels, with the largest gains early. Ignoring Con modifiers, a Level 3 character has approximately half the hp of a Level 10 Character, while a level 6 character has approximately half the hp of a level 20 character. For a precise summary:

HD........L3........L6........L10.........L20
d6.........17.......27........35...........45
d8.........21.......34........45...........65
d10.......25.......41........55...........85
d12.......30.......48........65..........105

This already goes a long way towards limiting the distance higher level characters get from lower level ones.

The larger change is to end BAB, Save, Magical Attack and Defensive progressions after level 10. Skills, feats and special abilities will continue to be acrued normally. For the purposes of meeting the pre-reqs for feats and combat manouevres, characters can assume the progressions continued normally (eg, a 14th level Soldier stuck on +10 BAB can treat his BAB as +14 to meet pre-reqs).

I am not sure whether to retain ability increases past level 10, but I am thinking that I probably will. I will almost certainly add a feat allowing a +1 increase to BAB, for Fighter BAB classes that really want a third attack.

The end result is that high level characters continue to become tougher and more versatile, without reaching virtual invulnerability.

An important note is that only humans will have advancement capped at level 10. Other things gain BAB, Save and all the rest past 10 HD.

Thoughts, opinions, criticism welcome. Note, however, that "It's fine as it is, don't mess with things," is not useful. Please keep in mind my goal to close the gap between higher and lower level characters.

 

[Sutek]

I think what you might consider instead is that the Hit Dice rolls each level be counted as an increase pool for Parry and Dodge, player's choice, automatically deducting the CON bonus from the ammount generated.

For example, a d10 Barbarian with a CON 16 (+3) rolls his hit dice upon reaching 4th level. He rolls a 9 and deducts 3 to add to his HP (grossing a +6 because of his CON bonus, but also using that bonus to determine how much to deduct minimum). He can now coose to increase Parry, Dodge or HP with the remaining 6pts in that Hit Dice Pool. These would act as a miscellaneous enhancement bonus. That's a complicated solution.

An easy solution might be to cause anyone suffering a blow after DR that is equal to or greater than thier CON to be Staggered (pg 174). That combined with lethal/non-lethal damage and Massive Damage can possible be brutal enough.

This would keep HPs low but increase the functional values ascociated with hitting and missing instead of adding to the more abstract HP value each level.

I think the static progression really screws the lower hit die classes rather than making th ebeefy ones a bit more vulnerable. If you dont' want to retain ability increases ... dont' play with the Conan rules. Those things are there to make characters seriously powerful (almost legalized munchkining - lol).

Above all else, I'd steer clear of mucking with BAB and Class ascociated numbers and only make tweaks to suit your style of game in the general rules. That's the only fair approach so you dont' adversely ding combat-light classes or finesse oritated classes. You system as it stands makes anything other than a Barbarian or Soldier pretty much dead meat.

 

[SableWyvern]

You've lost me on the whole "increase pool", would you care to elaborate? How does allowing staggering factor into this, or were those two completely seperate points?


I'm having difficulty seeing how the hp progression hurts anyone - it starts everyone well above the average, and gradually eases them back to the average. Actually rolling would do pretty much the same thing, although some would move from above average to average, while others from below average to average. (Edit: Actually, I didn't consider the full HD at first level when determining the average, which means currently everyone ends up [(HD/2) - 0.5] worse off. That's easily fixed if I feel the need to do so, however)


I certainly think ability increases aren't integral to the Conan feel, but I do agree they are worth keeping -- for much the same reason you mention.


Your last point is the one that I already wondered about most, although a quick glance at the numbers seemed to indicate to me it wouldn't be a huge problem.

Here's my thinking, regarding BAB specifically; your opinion on where I've gone wrong here would be appreciated (a specific example would be appreciated, if you are willing to take the time).

Fighter classes end up with a BAB of +10, others +7. This is a narrow margin which would seem, if anything, to favour lower BAB classes, who would otherwise fall back to a deficit of -5 by level 20. Fighter classes get the option of a bonus 3rd attack. Not sure whether that's worth a feat or not for a +1 attack, although with low DVs, it seems reasonable, but not overpowering. They end up with an extra attack anyway, with the normal progression.

On the down side, classes with a lot of combat feats might streak further ahead - their combat effectiveness increases, while that of others does not, or does so much more slowly. Still, if BAB were increasing, the difference in BAB would also be increasing (in the Fighter-classes favour), so I'm not sure that's really an issue.

In short, if the classes are balanced as written, the DV and BAB values for level 10 should be balanced by definition. Maintaining that balance, while keeping feat additions at the pre-existing (and thus also balanced) rate of increase, doesn't seem to me as if it should cause problems.

The same logic should apply to other capped progressions.


What I really haven't contemplated yet is the potential affect these rules will have on multiclassing.

 

[SableWyvern]

Ok, I think I get what you were saying first up, now.

Given the variation possible with your HD to parry/dodge option, it would be very difficult to predict the possible results that would have in game. I have a feeling it would make bad HP rolls potentially a lot worse though. And I can't see how it levels the curve.

The staggering option also fails to alter the huge discrepency between the attack and defense values of characters of different levels. Being able to stagger someone is only going to be of use if you can hit them in the first place; with this rule, that hitting will be even less frequent, as mooks will be getting staggered all over the place. Seems to me the rule would do the exact opposite of what I'm looking for.

Making things more brutal isn't really what I'm looking at doing here -- that's a small part of it, indirectly, but not the focus. I've got other ideas as to how I plan to do that (and I don't actually think the system needs much brutalling up). What I'm trying to do is simply level the playing field a little.

 

[Sutek]

It hurts them because "average" is differnt for each differnt Class. A Pirate wearing no armor and having lower "average" HP in your method than a Soldier wearing armor (which they are much more apt to do) is going to make for a dead Pirate a lot more quickly than a dead Soldier. However, it's not doing so by following the actual combat scores for each Class (Parry & Dodge) or BAB. Now, what you're also doing is decreasing BAB and this further hinders those Classes which rely on a decent BAB but not decent or high weapon damage because they attack through Finesse (Classes with better REF, Dodge and DEX will typically be of this sort).

Given the variation possible with your HD to parry/dodge option, it would be very difficult to predict the possible results that would have in game. I have a feeling it would make bad HP rolls potentially a lot worse though. And I can't see how it levels the curve.

Leveling the curve is what I see damaging the integrity of the OGL system. Having a "bad roll" could affect HP now anyway, and using a static HP increase (or rather the static progression you suggest above) doesn't hamper combat ability OR increase combat prowess. It just makes people die faster. HP in the D20 OGL engine is meant to be reflective of "near misses" much moreso than actual wounds and depletion of HP is a metaphor in a lot of ways. It a character tiring down and getting worn out while fighting a lot rather than a true representatin of his cuts and bruises. The conceptual abstraction breaks down by having weapons that do X damage to HPs, when it really isn't damage at all. This, as I see it, is the issue you have with the system as is.

There's a good thread that discusses this called "Too many Hit Points", or something like that. You may already be aware of it. One suggestion was using CON as the Massive Damage threshold instead of 20. This makes survivability drop considerably without being too invasive to the system right out of the book. If you alter the HP gain progression then you arent' accounting for the insane ammount of damage that can be dealt at higher levels, and I see you considering compensating for that by negating the Ability Increase mechanic after an arbitrary level. What you're setting yourself up for is having to continually alter the checks and ballances like this to adjust for the likes of Power Attack and Two-handed weapon damage. A Bardiche in the hands of a STR 16 (+3) character can deal 7-34 points of damage without a Crit. That's an average damage of about 20, which takes out and average L3, d6HD character of 17 hit points easily. Not only that, but it's an assured Massive Damage blow jsut on average damage to anyone not wearing armor, whicih is just about any other Class besides Soldier - and that's going to happen at any character level. I mean, all I have to do is deal 20pts of damage to you and you might be down and dying. If you have 347 hit points, all I need to do is 20 points of damage. The upward ammount is irrelevant, but it makes surviving many small blows more possible.

Way I figure it, a moderately geared up and properly equipped warrior in the ConanRPG will be ably to kill foes instantly if they are about 1 or more lower than him. That's it. The mechanic is already extremely deadly and your changes woul dmake things nigh unsurvivable.

I think your premise is a bit flawed is all. The playing field is level now - character level 3 guys are all about the same and have differnt strengths and weaknesses. The exception may be the Scholar, but they make good sorcerers and sorcery is sick in this game. (lol)

Are you trying to alter downward sucess rates to be more even (eg. moderate PC levels versus low level mooks) or are yyou tryingot make it a bit easier for those same sorts of PCs to be capable of standing toe to toe with really powerful things without just getting mushed? I gues I don't see your thesis being presented here and assume therefore that you're coming at things from a "I want more blood" angle.

 

[SableWyvern]

Sutek: It is perhaps propitious that I posted this when I did. We seem to almost be ready to agree completely on 5' Step, so something new to argue seems called for.

Anyway thanks for the feedback so far.


Your complaint about a fixed HP progression still makes no sense to me. Take 100 Pirates and 100 Soldiers made precisely according to the rules, and you will find their HP tend to be very close to what this progression gives, with small deviations to either side, and probably some wider deviations in both directions in a very small number of instances.

Now, if what you're really thinking about is HP continuing to accrue while other stats do not, there may be some basis for considering potential problems, although I can't spot any off-hand.

I like your understanding of what HP represent, btw, a lot of people don't get that. I agree completely. Obviously we're missing something in each others' position, if I have led you to believe that a volitile topic that I happen to agree with you on in its entirety is in fact a point of contention.

Are you simply suggesting that since lower level characters have a higher proportion of their potential hps, they become more dangerous to higher level characters?

This is exactly what I'm looking for, and it works both ways. The PCs start at low level, remember.

Too many HP is not the issue -- my system gives exactly the default HP.

On abilities, I've already conceded that point. The only reason I considered ending the advances was because I was ending all of the other straight numerical advances except skills, and I didn't see any pressing


THIS JUST IN! THIS JUST IN
My house mate just wandered in and handed me a package from the UK. Conan Atlantean - At last!!!

We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.


need to rule either way. In the end, I decided the player enjoyment of the stat increases was the factor that was important, and that keeping the increases in wouldn't hurt my objective.

I'm pressed for time, so I'll have to leave it there for the moment ... more later.

 

[Sutek]

Level......d12......d10......d8......d6
1..............12........10.......8.......6
2..............10.........8........7.......6
3................8.........7........6......5
4................7.........6........5......4
5...............6..........5........4......3
6...............5..........5........4......3
7...............5..........4........3......2
8...............4..........4........3......2
9...............4..........3........3......2
10.............4..........3........2......2
11+...........4..........3........2......1


HD........L3........L6........L10.........L20
d6.........17.......27........35...........45
d8.........21.......34........45...........65
d10.......25.......41........55...........85
d12.......30.......48........65..........105

It's as simple as this in my mind:

The track you give above does make for higher than average HP per level. At L3, a d6 hit dice character with n CON bonus would have 9HP, whereas your chart gives him a whopping 17. Seems nnnice, except that rolling the dice I could potentially have had 18. One point of potential HP off of a set of really good rolls probably doesn't make my case very well, but when looking then at the HP potential for a d10 character is 58HP at L11 by your chart (assing up the entire collumn) but by rolls it could be 110 - almost twice as many.

To this I'm sure you're saying "That's exactly why I'm wanting to change it - I think that 110HP is too many and causes too huge a gap between a character with that ammount and a reletively low level character."

Let's say you have that 110HP and I am a 1st level Soldier with no STR bonus using a Bardiche, Power Attack and Improved INIT; not an unlikely situation given the bonus feat for Soldiers at L1. I choose to involve 4points for Power attack and swing first because I probably roll higher for INIT. If I hit, which could be versus and Unmodified DV of 14-18 depending on Class and Parry/Dodge (feats could easily make thehit tougher, but let's stick to unmodified for now), then I can deal 6-24 points of damage with the Bardiche. If you aren't wearing armor, 20-24 damage will force you to make a Massive Damage save or be dying, regardless of your 110HPs.

That's for an 11th level you versus a 1st level me and it's pretty good odds that (A) I shouldn't be fighting you to begin with and (B) that in spite of that I have a decent chance to take you out in one shot anyway, someone 10 experience levels higher than me.

That's a pretty level playing field if you ask me...no modification required...

 

[SableWyvern]

Ok, I'm starting to see where you're coming from, although I think the issue is mainly one whereby we are starting from different philosophical perspectives to begin with.

I must say, having been reading through the rulebook, there is a lot of good advice given for achieving many of the things I'm looking for.

I will think on all this some more.

 

[Sutek]

Ah ... yes ... reading the book ... that's a great idea ....

:lol:

I went up and down on this topic with argos quite a bit, in less of a debate and more of a meeting of minds, and I can honestly say that this combat system and arrives at just the right level of nast awfulness and lucky survivability that a fantasy role playing game ought to have. The level of damage that the weapons can do with just a few basic feats is huge and characters are going to want all the HP they can get just to last a few rounds. It's one of th ereasons heal rates are much more increased compared to other d20 fantasy settings too - it needs to be!

 

[SableWyvern]

Ah ... yes ... reading the book ... that's a great idea ....

In my defence, it only arrived yesterday. And I have since gone out and purchased The Road of Kings, Scrolls of Skelos and Pirate Isles.

 

[Sutek]

Good for you. Now you'll become an adict like me... :lol:

 

[SableWyvern]

No, no.

You see, I plan to use these books to run a campaign that creates such a realistic depiction of the Hyborian Age that Conan himslef is summoned forth and all his power trapped within my own body. Then I will have consumed the Obsession and grown ever more mighty in my power.

MWAHAHA!!

:twisted:

 

[Sutek]

Yeah...REH thought the same thing, and you know what happened to him...

...adict...

 

[Ranzadule]

Take a look at AEG's Swashbuckling Adventures for their take on feats that improve AC to keep in line with Base Attack. Deadlands d20 also uses the target's Con Score for determining massive damage save necessity. WoTC's Wheel of Time has some good ideas on AC improvement as well. AEG is coming out with their Fantasy d20 based on the Warlord ccg and it will likely have some improved mechanics for d20. I feel your pain on the whole d20 thing. :wink:


Ranz
Hating d20 for almost 5 years now.

 

[SableWyvern]

Ranzadule, thanks for the feedback, but I think you missed my actual intent. The problem I have isn't with BAB-AC disparity, it's with high-mid-low level disparity.

Your comments on massive damage also remind me of something I wanted to clarify for Sutek:

The fact that lower level characters can theoretically kill higher level ones is fine. Increasing those chances is not what I want to do at all. Rather than improving opportunities for all-or-nothing kills, my main aim was to increase the chances of accrued damage, so that a weaker foe that does't kill a powerful character can still leave his mark.

An increase in outright lethality would be a side affect (theoretically an acceptable one), rather than a design goal.

One of my main objectives is to avoid the need to start pulling out hordes of supernatural creatures or super powerful human adversaries to challenge a high level group. If those people are rarely seen in the early days of a campaign, I don't want them suddenly relatively common. And, if they're not too hard to come by while the PCs are still low level, they're almost inevitably going to clash -- and you know who will come off second best.

My contemplation of the issue goes on.

 

[Sutek]

Alright, well, take a look at a more realistic Cimerian Barbarian (STR20[+5], HP12) armed with a Zaibar Knife (1d12, x2) and an Axe (1d8, x3). He can wield them with no penalty with 2Wpn Fighting Feat and inflict 12 - 30 hit points of damage every turn.

Through damage accrual, even passing any Massive Damage saves, that baddie with 110 HP is only goin gto last about 3 rounds or so unless he's wearing some really good armor (DR6+), and that's still agains tan enemy much more experiences and powerful than he.

The flip side is the 110HP guy is likely to have more Feats that can cause more nasty events to happen to the low level guy, but that's why a GM shouldnt' pit a 1st level character party against an 11th level baddie. You can, and four of them could probably take him, but they're gonna pay in blood.

 

[SableWyvern]

Until you consider the 11th level Soldier's 23 Parry (10 + 8 + 5 Str).

If the Barbarian doesn't win initiative, he's probably gone before he swings. If he does, he gets two chances to do some damage, needing 17 to hit. Then the Soldier kills him dead good and proper.

There's really no point trying to argue the Soldier should have any real concern for his safety. As you concede at the end, the fight shouldn't occur unless the GM simply wants the Barbarian dead very quickly and the Soldier likely unscathed. And as you said, the Soldier's got his feats.

Thing is, this same example works identically in my proposed setup, except the soldier is down 1 BAB and 1 Parry.

What I'm aiming to do is still provide encounters with the same sort of balance I would endeavour to use with the default setup. The difference is, it will take less contriving to achieve that degree of balance.

One thing is certain -- the default setups in the rulebook regarding the levels of troops is not something I can stomach. The bulk of trained soldiers being levels 1 and 2, maybe 3? With the rules as written?

I have begun to realise the options available for lower level groups of combatants -- grappling has become a lot more useful than it was - 1 AC while pinned can have a big effect (understatement). Although it will still be tough to actually pin a high level character in the first place.

Multiple attacker bonuses, the chances of broken weapons, dodge penalties when surrounded, all make a difference.

If what I propose isn't a solution, it lies somewhere between the two extremes. And I'm not saying the default rules are wrong in this regard, just that I can see them doing quite what I want.

What I want to be able to do is continue to pit higher level characters (15-20) against opponents who are still in the relatively common range of 7-10, and still provide a challenge. This, to me, is preferable to super-incredible elite bands of 14th level foes popping up with enough regularity to constantly be where they need to be to make the PCs work for what they get.

It's not about making things more lethal or dangerous, it's about not needing to scale antagonists so dramatically.

 

[Sutek]

Until you consider the 11th level Soldier's 23 Parry (10 + 8 + 5 Str).

So why would the 1st level guy even try and not just run for his life? Sometimes discretion is the better part of valour. (lol)

Also, if your method simple drops the potential by only 1 in each category, what is really the point?

 

[SableWyvern]

The drop by one refers to your specific example, where Mr Level 11 has his BAB and Parry capped at level 10.

There is definitely some kind of minsunderstanding going on here. All my comments about how the Barbarian is outclassed were based on what I assumed your example was trying to show: that the low level character could in some way challenge the higher level one. Based on your responses this was not the case.

I agree the Barbarian should make haste elsewhere. I am happy with this. My proposed system isn't aimed at changing a power balance in the levels 1-10 range. It's about levelling it out after that.

The idea is that you have a wide power range in that 1-10 spread, which covers everyone from a green recruit (level 1) up to elite units and individuals. Beyond that, things slow down, so that you have a range of elite characters not so disparate in power. A level 20 character will still be able to back himself against someone of level 10 without too much doubt, but he won't overpower such an adversary the way the level 10 character would a 1st level one.

The top ten levels are sort of like a heirarchy of the worlds best special forces and elite police units -- within that group, some are definitely better than others, but all of them are better than regular soliders. With my proposed system, you still have a wider spread than you probably do in the real world, but it is good enough for me, as the objective isn't to model the real world.

Someone who is unconcerned with this disparity won't have an issue with the rules as they stand. But it is apparent that at least some people don't believe Conan was as far beyond the typical soldier as his default level 20 indicates as King Conan. I am one of those people.

I itereate, that this isn't about making things more dangerous or difficult for the players, nor is it about turning 1st level characters into killing machines that cause higher level characters to tremble in fear.

It is about creating what I consider a more consistent and workable structure for NPC levels throughout society, and not being forced to tinker with those levels so much as the PCs advance in levels.

 

[Sutek]

Well, that is why it's easier to reach second level that it is to reach eighteenth. It's a curve so that the lower levels are gotten through quickly to get to the moderate levels (6-11?) so that higher level situations can be developed. The power of character of any level is reletive to encounters of that level, or close to it. That's why D&D has challenge ratings. Conan doesn't because they wanted disparity. The entire system is built around high levels being more powerful than lower levels, but also that the lowest levels increase in power at a faster rate and then things level off.

I huess I still don't see your intent, so I'll leave you to it.