[4e] Why even bother with scaling attack/defense?

[Caedrus]

So, here's the deal.

On the one hand, 4e has scaling attack and defense. On the other, you're totally supposed to fight things of the exact same attack and defense range as you at all times for the sake of "balance." If you want to fight weak enemies, they don't have a lesser attack bonus (because you scaled ahead of them), they have an artificially high one to "stay level-appropriate" or whatever. Whether it's minions or bosses, they're all on the same range.

But if everything's always supposed to have level-appropriate attacks/defenses, whether they're stronger or weaker than you, why bother with scaling attack and defense at all? Just to make it even more clear that you're not supposed to fight things that are higher level than you just as surely as you're not supposed to fight things lower level than you and everything is made out of arbitrarium and there's no consistency in the world whatsoever?

Just another random thought.

[RandomCasualty2]

Well a few reasons. The first is that you may have PCs of different levels, and without scaling attack/defense you can't represent that easily. The second is simply that players like to see their numbers get bigger, especially in a system that gives so few bonuses of leveling as 4E, that extra numeric boost makes people feel better.

Also just having straight numbers is probably easier than the tables you'd need to handle it otherwise.

[Mask_De_H]

It's an attempt to fit things into a more (J)RPG paradigm methinks, strangled by the red string of "balance". It would make more sense to just face different things that are set to a character of your level (like the CR system was supposed to be) or remove the concept of leveling altogether. DnD will never go sans levels but with the scaling it might as well have.

If they wanted to be lazy and still keep scaling enemies under their concept of balance, the scaled versions could be pallet swaps of one monster. That's not difficult, just call a low-level goblin a squig, medium levels gobbos, and high levels Carls. Add some delicious money-making fluff for each and done.

[Caedrus]

The second is simply that players like to see their numbers get bigger, especially in a system that gives so few bonuses of leveling as 4E, that extra numeric boost makes people feel better.

Really? Cuz I kinda feel like vomit whenever I'm dealing with this system...

If they wanted to be lazy and still keep scaling enemies under their concept of balance, the scaled versions could be pallet swaps of one monster. That's not difficult, just call a low-level goblin a squig, medium levels gobbos, and high levels Carls. Add some delicious money-making fluff for each and done.

"Buy our Monster Manual! It has 100 different shades of Sub-Ze-- I mean, uh, 100 different varieties of deadly monsters!"

Awesome.

[Psychic Robot]

So ignore bonuses and just increase HP and damage. Huh.

I like it.

[Fuchs]

Stop levelling alltogether?

[Just another user]

I'm not sure, because 4e don't interest me enugh to try it but I suspect that removing the "+1/2 level to everything" could make the game more interesting. On one hand the higher level character would still be more powerful because they would have higher stats, better weapons, more hps, etc, on the other you should not have everything around the PCs be artificially forced in a range of -5/+5 levels from the PCs to not make the SoD crumble into atomic dust.
But as I've said I don't care about 4e enough to even think about this too much.

[Koumei]

But as I've said I don't care about 4e enough to even think about this too much.

DING DING DING! We have the correct answer!

Caedrus: how many pallet-swap male ninjas are there so far? I stopped playing ~UMK3, but I count Sub Zero, Scorpion, Reptile, Smoke, Noob Saibot, Ermac (nice joke there, guys) and Rain. Then you have the girl ninjas (Kitana, Mileena, Jade, Chameleon?) and the robo-ninjas (Sektor, Cyrax, Robo-Smoke) as well, of course.

Bloody hell, it's like the Power Rangers got their own fighting game*.

*IIRC, they actually did, but it sucked.

[Caedrus]

But as I've said I don't care about 4e enough to even think about this too much.

DING DING DING! We have the correct answer!

Caedrus: how many pallet-swap male ninjas are there so far? I stopped playing ~UMK3, but I count Sub Zero, Scorpion, Reptile, Smoke, Noob Saibot, Ermac (nice joke there, guys) and Rain. Then you have the girl ninjas (Kitana, Mileena, Jade, Chameleon?) and the robo-ninjas (Sektor, Cyrax, Robo-Smoke) as well, of course.

Bloody hell, it's like the Power Rangers got their own fighting game*.

*IIRC, they actually did, but it sucked.

I have no idea. But, AFAIK, they stopped the pallet-swapping thing a while back as technology advanced.

[Akula]

THAC0 anyone?

[Caedrus]

So I'm just wondering, honestly, is there something I'm missing or is there seriously no point at all to these progressions except for "keeping up appearances" to the more braindead consumers who draw completely arbitrary cues and conclusions from text elements?

[Akula]

They are there to more neatly pigeon-hole characters and fully enforce the "one way to play them" class structure. Because the monsters scale ahead of the PCs unless you optimize heavily.

[Draco_Argentum]

But if everything's always supposed to have level-appropriate attacks/defenses, whether they're stronger or weaker than you, why bother with scaling attack and defense at all? Just to make it even more clear that you're not supposed to fight things that are higher level than you just as surely as you're not supposed to fight things lower level than you and everything is

Its an easy way to stop the village militia from beating the world ending monster of doom.

[Just another user]

But if everything's always supposed to have level-appropriate attacks/defenses, whether they're stronger or weaker than you, why bother with scaling attack and defense at all? Just to make it even more clear that you're not supposed to fight things that are higher level than you just as surely as you're not supposed to fight things lower level than you and everything is

Its an easy way to stop the village militia from beating the world ending monster of doom.

Isn't that a little too simulationist for 4e?

[Fuchs]

I thought the DM is just supposed to handwave such fights away in 4E.

But it's no surprise that the scaling is there - it's a staple in MMOGs as well, you often fight the same mobs, just with different skins, as you level up, facing the same relative damage and doing the same relative damage to them.

[Caedrus]

But if everything's always supposed to have level-appropriate attacks/defenses, whether they're stronger or weaker than you, why bother with scaling attack and defense at all? Just to make it even more clear that you're not supposed to fight things that are higher level than you just as surely as you're not supposed to fight things lower level than you and everything is

Its an easy way to stop the village militia from beating the world ending monster of doom.

I thought you were supposed to arbitrarily turn the village militia into Minions that have level-appropriate attacks and defenses, though.

I thought the DM is just supposed to handwave such fights away in 4E.

But it's no surprise that the scaling is there - it's a staple in MMOGs as well, you often fight the same mobs, just with different skins, as you level up, facing the same relative damage and doing the same relative damage to them.

The point is that it's not really scaling. Once you get higher level than the kobold, 4e says you can't just fight that kobold anymore. You have to fight a new, minion version of that kobold with level-appropriate attacks and defenses but only 1 hp.

[TarkisFlux]

So Caedrus, you're not actually railing against the idea of scaling attacks and defenses, just scaling attacks and defenses in conjunction with perfectly auto-scaling minions and very tight encounter level guidelines / requirements? If you had scaling attacks and defenses but monsters didn't auto-scale up to you, so you could fight a level 1 kobold that acted like a level 1 kobold and wasn't a threat to your level 10 character, that'd be fine, or at least less frustrating?

[Caedrus]

The point is that it appears to be a mechanic that doesn't actually exist. People "lower level" than you have the same relative attack rolls and defenses, people "higher level" then you have the same relative attack rolls and defenses. Because "lower level" and "higher level" people are actually all equal level to you in 4e. Thus, the game gives the appearance that this scaling does not actually exist.

This is another example of WotC appearing to countermand their own design goals in D&D 4e. On the one hand, someone said "As you get higher level, your attack and defenses should scale away from lower level people" while at the same time someone also said "People should always have basically the same attack and defenses, regardless of their "level" difference, so we need these "Minion" and "Solo" templates on same-level creatures to get around what that douchebag who wants scaling said." A and !A. Like the rules are fighting with each other for different design goals.

[Username17]

Monsters actually come in power bands. You're still fighting the same elven archers for several levels, and gaining level bonuses changes your relative effectiveness to them noticeably. Then you jump to fighting enemies in the next power band and your numbers are a bit on the low side again. I agree that it's pretty pointless, but it does have an effect. The effect is that you go up about 4 levels in a zone and you go from slightly struggling to slightly not struggling before you go to the next zone and face pallet swap monsters that you slightly struggle against.

By having the attacks and defenses scale a bit they are able to maintain this dynamic with less damage/hit point inflation. Of course, hit point inflation is still over the top crazy bullshit large anyway. But if they wanted to do the amount of JRPG scaling each zone has in the current edition and they did not have the increases to attack and defense, hit point inflation would be even worse.

-Username17

[Lago PARANOIA]

Then why didn't they just keep the base bonuses static and just assign extra attack/defense/damage/whatever dice depending on what monsters you were facing?

'Okay, we're facing some ogres and an elven sorcerers. They ogres are two levels lower than you are and the sorcerer is three higher, so, you know, adjust appropriately.'

[Username17]

Because this is 4e and all the math is done for you and "just works."

-Username17

[MartinHarper]

Then why didn't they just keep the base bonuses static and just assign extra attack/defense/damage/whatever dice depending on what monsters you were facing?

If the DM prepares an encounter and the PCs unexpectedly level before running into it, then the DM would need to adjust the monster's numbers, which would take time. It's slightly quicker to adjust the PC's numbers once, when they level.