Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
Mike Mearls on how D&D 4E could have looked
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 7764518" data-attributes="member: 6696971"><p>If I have time tonight, I’m going to flesh out the last session that I GMed 5e (18th level game with a Diviner Wizard, Fighter, and Thief). We aren’t getting anywhere the way we’re going so I’d be curious what people thought about the absolute domination of individual gamestates and overall play trajectory by the Diviner. </p><p></p><p>5e design could have changed the scope of play at all levels and scaled it so endgame Wizardly magic becomes extremely volatile (potentially changing the gamestate badly against the PCs).</p><p></p><p>If they didn’t want to use a conflict resolution mechanic subsystem, they could have easily included the following resolution architecture:</p><p></p><p>1) All spells require an Arcana, Religion, Nature, Perform Check. Success and you’re good to go. Fail by 1-3 (I much prefer this than the DMG 1-2) and there is a complication (I mentioned some possibilities way upthread) ) but spell goes off. Failure equals no spell, but Complication. The maths should probably put it at something like 17 % Success, 66 % Success with Complication, 17 % Failure w/ Complication.</p><p></p><p>2) Saving Throw maths should be rescaled accordingly so spellcasters aren’t hit with compound probability double whammy.</p><p></p><p>That would make spellcasting (a) more interesting (in terms of impact on the gamestate), (b) more balanced as spells become more powerful and loadouts become more proliferate, and (b) more genre appropriate.</p><p></p><p>This would have been a simple thing to do at the design phase and would have made the game infinitely more fun to GM.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 7764518, member: 6696971"] If I have time tonight, I’m going to flesh out the last session that I GMed 5e (18th level game with a Diviner Wizard, Fighter, and Thief). We aren’t getting anywhere the way we’re going so I’d be curious what people thought about the absolute domination of individual gamestates and overall play trajectory by the Diviner. 5e design could have changed the scope of play at all levels and scaled it so endgame Wizardly magic becomes extremely volatile (potentially changing the gamestate badly against the PCs). If they didn’t want to use a conflict resolution mechanic subsystem, they could have easily included the following resolution architecture: 1) All spells require an Arcana, Religion, Nature, Perform Check. Success and you’re good to go. Fail by 1-3 (I much prefer this than the DMG 1-2) and there is a complication (I mentioned some possibilities way upthread) ) but spell goes off. Failure equals no spell, but Complication. The maths should probably put it at something like 17 % Success, 66 % Success with Complication, 17 % Failure w/ Complication. 2) Saving Throw maths should be rescaled accordingly so spellcasters aren’t hit with compound probability double whammy. That would make spellcasting (a) more interesting (in terms of impact on the gamestate), (b) more balanced as spells become more powerful and loadouts become more proliferate, and (b) more genre appropriate. This would have been a simple thing to do at the design phase and would have made the game infinitely more fun to GM. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
Mike Mearls on how D&D 4E could have looked
Top