Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Fanaelialae" data-source="post: 5824876" data-attributes="member: 53980">No, by doing that you only reduce jumps in average output. You still see huge gains (doubling) in minimum and maximum output per round, which also should be accounted for.With an additive increase, it's very obvious by how much you're increasing damage because you increase minimum, maximum, and average all at once. Without the kludge of attack penalties, I might add.A flat damage modifier is very easy to calculate. As for the rogue's sneak attack bonus, it's still just a very straightforward range. The same goes for weapon and strength.However, if a rogue can make 1 attack at +5, 2 attacks at +3, or 3 attacks at +1, it's significantly more complex. Those 3 attacks styles produce very different results depending on the the AC they target. Those three attack sequences will produce a very wide range of numbers, and therefore be much harder to balance for.I'm pretty sure they're only talking about flattening the attack bonus. +1 damage every level is a fairly moderate and reasonable rate to scale at.Multiple attacks make everything jumpier. If I give +1/3 levels to a PC who can only make 1 attack, that's still just +1 damage every 3 levels. Perhaps +2 on a crit. If I give it to someone with 3 attacks, that +1 might be worth +0 (if your attack penalty causes you to miss with all three attacks), all the way up to +6 (critting with all 3 attacks). In essence, what I'm saying is that it's not enough to just look at the average damage. You also have to look at the minimum and maximum damage. Otherwise you end up with orcs who can one shot a healthy fighter with a better than average attack sequence, because the math is only balanced against the assumed "average". Simply put, it can easily lead to broken math. That's not the type of game that I, personally, want to play.</blockquote>

Verification