Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="KidSnide" data-source="post: 6064512" data-attributes="member: 54710">Well, the real issue here is a side effect of flattening the to hit math.&nbsp; By changing to hit math, they have placed most of the leveling pressure on damage and hit points.&nbsp; (The math isn't completely flat, but it's a lot flatter than it used to be.)&nbsp; So, if a 20th level fighter is supposed to be twice as effective as a 10th level fighter, a 20th level fighter has to do almost twice as much damage per hit.&nbsp; The goal is to make 1st level monsters a threat to 20th level characters, but I'm not sure it's worth it.&nbsp; I think 1st level monsters should be a threat to 12-14th level characters in large numbers, but I don't have a problem if the very highest level characters can start to ignore the effect of the lowest level opponents (at least if some of them don't use a help action on their attacks).&nbsp; Just as on an aesthetic level, the damage numbers seem a little too high.&nbsp; Also, there becomes a realism issue with high level monsters.&nbsp; Asmodeus shouldn't be in the position where putting on some +2 plate armor would be a huge improvement to his AC.&nbsp; Likewise, with an AC of 15, I think red dragons a little too vulnerable to massed arrow fire, at least for my taste.&nbsp; It only takes 70-75 spear-wielding level 1 human warriors to kill a level 14 red dragon in a single round.&nbsp; (Worse, a mob of 160 rock-throwing human commoners are just as deadly.)&nbsp; I like the idea that low level warriors will remain relevant and I understand the realism aspect of &quot;infantry is the ultimate weapon&quot;, but I think this is going a little too far for D&amp;D.I agree with the designers that both 3e and 4e went too far in giving massive mathematical bonuses to characters.&nbsp; But something closer to AD&amp;D seems better to me than what D&amp;DN has now.&nbsp; I'm not fond of many of the ad hoc, &quot;a thousand unique systems&quot; design elements that you find in AD&amp;D, but I have to give credit to GG: his ad hoc sense of balance was pretty good.&nbsp; An AC progression that starts at 10 and maxes out at 30 doesn't sound so bad.&nbsp; Maybe characters should get a less intense 4e-style +1 bonus to attacks, AC, spell DCs, saves and skill checks?&nbsp; Maybe +4 or +5 by 20th level?-KS</blockquote>

[QUOTE="KidSnide, post: 6064512, member: 54710"] Well, the real issue here is a side effect of flattening the to hit math. By changing to hit math, they have placed most of the leveling pressure on damage and hit points. (The math isn't completely flat, but it's a lot flatter than it used to be.) So, if a 20th level fighter is supposed to be twice as effective as a 10th level fighter, a 20th level fighter has to do almost twice as much damage per hit. The goal is to make 1st level monsters a threat to 20th level characters, but I'm not sure it's worth it. I think 1st level monsters should be a threat to 12-14th level characters in large numbers, but I don't have a problem if the very highest level characters can start to ignore the effect of the lowest level opponents (at least if some of them don't use a help action on their attacks). Just as on an aesthetic level, the damage numbers seem a little too high. Also, there becomes a realism issue with high level monsters. Asmodeus shouldn't be in the position where putting on some +2 plate armor would be a huge improvement to his AC. Likewise, with an AC of 15, I think red dragons a little too vulnerable to massed arrow fire, at least for my taste. It only takes 70-75 spear-wielding level 1 human warriors to kill a level 14 red dragon in a single round. (Worse, a mob of 160 rock-throwing human commoners are just as deadly.) I like the idea that low level warriors will remain relevant and I understand the realism aspect of "infantry is the ultimate weapon", but I think this is going a little too far for D&D. I agree with the designers that both 3e and 4e went too far in giving massive mathematical bonuses to characters. But something closer to AD&D seems better to me than what D&DN has now. I'm not fond of many of the ad hoc, "a thousand unique systems" design elements that you find in AD&D, but I have to give credit to GG: his ad hoc sense of balance was pretty good. An AC progression that starts at 10 and maxes out at 30 doesn't sound so bad. Maybe characters should get a less intense 4e-style +1 bonus to attacks, AC, spell DCs, saves and skill checks? Maybe +4 or +5 by 20th level? -KS [/QUOTE]

Verification