tomBitonti
Hero
A separate thread touches upon the math describing player power increases due to level increases, and similar math describing how to increase monster powers as the challenge rating of the monster is increased.
Such strict mathematical increases are present, informally, in 1E, for example, but increasing monster Natural Armor bonuses, largely without explanation, or by adding +'s to magic items, or by assuming standard stat boosting items. The sequence of G1-G3, D1-D3 illustrates the power increases very directly. 3/3.5E makes the math more formal, with strict linear increases in many cases. 4E pushed the linearization to more areas, making all of attack, defense, and skills subject to linear increases with level.
Not covered by the thread, but increasingly a part of D&D are narratively specific abilities. For example, Power Attack, or Dodge from 3/3.5E, and numerous specific abilities from 4E.
The two trends: Strict linear power growth; many narratively specific powers, have (in my opinion) pushed the game strongly to having a different feel than 1E. That is not comment on a qualitative difference, here meaning "better or worse", just to say, different.
The trends stand out more clearly when considering other gaming systems, in particular, Warhammer Fantasy, which uses careers and has no linear ability growth. Ability/power increases are entirely by purchases of specific increases as a part of a career package. Purchases include both ability type (e.g., Strength) gains, as well as specific abilities (e.g., Strike Mighty Blow, or Parry, or Blather).
In reflection on these trends, I find myself asking several questions: To what degree are the several features a part of the essential feel of D&D? To what degree are the features necessary to compete with several available gaming systems? And: How many of the features can be provided through a modular game while retaining a clear core identity to the game? How many of the features can be used while retaining coherency, with a direct impact to playability?
TomB
Such strict mathematical increases are present, informally, in 1E, for example, but increasing monster Natural Armor bonuses, largely without explanation, or by adding +'s to magic items, or by assuming standard stat boosting items. The sequence of G1-G3, D1-D3 illustrates the power increases very directly. 3/3.5E makes the math more formal, with strict linear increases in many cases. 4E pushed the linearization to more areas, making all of attack, defense, and skills subject to linear increases with level.
Not covered by the thread, but increasingly a part of D&D are narratively specific abilities. For example, Power Attack, or Dodge from 3/3.5E, and numerous specific abilities from 4E.
The two trends: Strict linear power growth; many narratively specific powers, have (in my opinion) pushed the game strongly to having a different feel than 1E. That is not comment on a qualitative difference, here meaning "better or worse", just to say, different.
The trends stand out more clearly when considering other gaming systems, in particular, Warhammer Fantasy, which uses careers and has no linear ability growth. Ability/power increases are entirely by purchases of specific increases as a part of a career package. Purchases include both ability type (e.g., Strength) gains, as well as specific abilities (e.g., Strike Mighty Blow, or Parry, or Blather).
In reflection on these trends, I find myself asking several questions: To what degree are the several features a part of the essential feel of D&D? To what degree are the features necessary to compete with several available gaming systems? And: How many of the features can be provided through a modular game while retaining a clear core identity to the game? How many of the features can be used while retaining coherency, with a direct impact to playability?
TomB
