Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7232608" data-attributes="member: 996">Not at a faster rate, 1:3 would be a faster rate than 1:4.&nbsp; Rather, they get an ASI or two, at specific levels, in addition to 1:4 levels everyone gets.&nbsp; The OP mentioned that, and the DM in question counted those ASIs as class features. &nbsp;It'd've been simpler, really.&nbsp;&nbsp; Only two classes would have had ASI's on their tables.&nbsp;Extra Attack is a problematic mechanic, as it's always been, of course. But, it's how weapon attacks scale with level.&nbsp; Cantrips also scale with level, character level, take one level of a caster class and your attack cantrip scales, but that's apparently not 'too much.'&nbsp; As with calculating slots for MC'd casters, Extra Attack could count levels of different classes differently.&nbsp; Fighters 1:1, classes that get fewer extra attacks would have to count for less.&nbsp;Quite a lot, actually.&nbsp; With BA flattening d20 scaling, hp/damage scaling is extremely important, and weapon attacks only scale with level by getting Extra Attacks (and, much less substantially, by boosting STR or DEX).&nbsp; MCing currently makes the progression of both those inconsistent.&nbsp; That's not ideal.&nbsp; &nbsp;No, they want D&amp;D to be bad in confortably familiar ways.&nbsp;That's the problem, really.&nbsp; W/o MCing, class-level scaling is in synch with character-level scaling.&nbsp; Throw MCing into the mix, and some things, like cantrip damage and proficiency stay in synch, and others, like ASIs and extra attacks are thrown out of synch.&nbsp; I hate to sound like Capn Zapp, but, at this point, it's looking like just plain &quot;bad design.&quot;&nbsp;Obviously that's not on the table, but...&nbsp; That's not actually the case, precisely because D&amp;D is not a granular design, but a class-based system. Some levels of some classes are strictly much better than others, because they deliver on something that prior levels have been building towards.&nbsp; Extra attack is a perfect example.&nbsp; You don't get extra attack for taking a level of fighter, you get it for taking 5 levels of fighter, all 5 of those levels are paying for it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7232608, member: 996"] Not at a faster rate, 1:3 would be a faster rate than 1:4. Rather, they get an ASI or two, at specific levels, in addition to 1:4 levels everyone gets. The OP mentioned that, and the DM in question counted those ASIs as class features. It'd've been simpler, really. Only two classes would have had ASI's on their tables. Extra Attack is a problematic mechanic, as it's always been, of course. But, it's how weapon attacks scale with level. Cantrips also scale with level, character level, take one level of a caster class and your attack cantrip scales, but that's apparently not 'too much.' As with calculating slots for MC'd casters, Extra Attack could count levels of different classes differently. Fighters 1:1, classes that get fewer extra attacks would have to count for less. Quite a lot, actually. With BA flattening d20 scaling, hp/damage scaling is extremely important, and weapon attacks only scale with level by getting Extra Attacks (and, much less substantially, by boosting STR or DEX). MCing currently makes the progression of both those inconsistent. That's not ideal. No, they want D&D to be bad in confortably familiar ways. That's the problem, really. W/o MCing, class-level scaling is in synch with character-level scaling. Throw MCing into the mix, and some things, like cantrip damage and proficiency stay in synch, and others, like ASIs and extra attacks are thrown out of synch. I hate to sound like Capn Zapp, but, at this point, it's looking like just plain "bad design." Obviously that's not on the table, but... That's not actually the case, precisely because D&D is not a granular design, but a class-based system. Some levels of some classes are strictly much better than others, because they deliver on something that prior levels have been building towards. Extra attack is a perfect example. You don't get extra attack for taking a level of fighter, you get it for taking 5 levels of fighter, all 5 of those levels are paying for it. [/QUOTE]

Verification