Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Joshua Randall" data-source="post: 2993263" data-attributes="member: 7737">Those are strong clues, I agree.These however are not strong clues, to me. For BAB to generate iterative attacks in a sensible way, it must do so on an integer that divides evenly into 20. The only choices are 2, 4, 5, and 10. I think the designers were right to go with the iteration at 5, rather than 10, because waiting to be 11th level before you get two attacks per round is not enough of a cookie for the melee classes.Iteration at 2 would be ridiculous, and iteration at 4 is not sufficiently different from 5 to justify the extra attack per round coming into play at lower levels.Regarding 5th level spells, they were ported over from 1e/2e, so I don't think the fact that they are 5th level is anything other than a historical artifact. Unless you would like to argue that the design of OD&D considered 5th level spells the appropriate level at which to introduce game-changing effects. Which would be an interesting argument to make, and relatively easy to verify (with Col Playdoh).It depends upon the kind of game you want to design. If you want to design a game in which the PCs eventually become as powerful as demigods, then the PCs should be able to automatically succeed at tasks with normal-level DCs -- i.e. the PCs should eventually have so many plusses (from skill ranks, ability scores, and magic) that the d20 roll is rendered irrelevant.If you want to design a game in which the PCs are consistently faced with skill challenges that they have roughly a 50% chance to overcome, then the DCs need to scale up to keep the d20 roll meaningful.Then that is bad adventure design, not bad game design.Again, it depends upon what kind of game you're designing.</blockquote>

Verification