Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Doing away with "Bigger Fish" problem.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Rhenny" data-source="post: 5822557" data-attributes="member: 18333"><p>I'm a fan of flatter math for a number of reasons.</p><p></p><p>First, I think it makes the game a little more gritty. I like the idea that creatures, no mater if they are lowly goblins or orcs, can have the potential to be dangerous to more PC levels. This doesn't mean that the PCs will encounter the same creatures over and over again. The DM will still be able to mix it up, but when needed, the goblins and orcs can come back into the picture.</p><p></p><p>Secondly, it just makes sense for some stats. For example AC. Since D&D hit points are already an abstraction that represents more than just physical damage taken, AC should be grounded to something real like type of armor or hide plus dexterity bonus. Heavily armored creatures with excellent dexterity should push AC 20-25, but that should be nearly the limit (with some magical exceptions). It just makes more sense. In 4e, I hate how clumsy, leather hide creatures (level 10 or 12) have AC of 32. Then, if AC is lower generally, there is no need to have "to hit" bonuses escalate at a fast rate.</p><p></p><p>With lower AC, players will also feel as if they have more chances to get lucky against superior foes. This will make the game more exciting, and make decision making more interesting. If PCs encounter creatures that are more powerful than they are (especially if they have high AC and other defenses that are high)..there really isn't any choice. If the PCs realize the danger, they should flee or try to avoid. If there was a chink in the armor so to speak, the PCs will have to make more meaningful decisions. Perhaps they can divide and conquer, or if there is only a small number of biggies, they can take a chance, and cut and run when they realize the encounter is going "sour."</p><p></p><p>Thirdly, if the base or core is flatter, groups can always add bonuses "to hit" or to "AC" to flavor their own campaigns as they like. If they want PCs to feel more heroic and deadly...apply +1 or +2 for training...or grant them magic to help them. It is always easier to add than to take away.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Rhenny, post: 5822557, member: 18333"] I'm a fan of flatter math for a number of reasons. First, I think it makes the game a little more gritty. I like the idea that creatures, no mater if they are lowly goblins or orcs, can have the potential to be dangerous to more PC levels. This doesn't mean that the PCs will encounter the same creatures over and over again. The DM will still be able to mix it up, but when needed, the goblins and orcs can come back into the picture. Secondly, it just makes sense for some stats. For example AC. Since D&D hit points are already an abstraction that represents more than just physical damage taken, AC should be grounded to something real like type of armor or hide plus dexterity bonus. Heavily armored creatures with excellent dexterity should push AC 20-25, but that should be nearly the limit (with some magical exceptions). It just makes more sense. In 4e, I hate how clumsy, leather hide creatures (level 10 or 12) have AC of 32. Then, if AC is lower generally, there is no need to have "to hit" bonuses escalate at a fast rate. With lower AC, players will also feel as if they have more chances to get lucky against superior foes. This will make the game more exciting, and make decision making more interesting. If PCs encounter creatures that are more powerful than they are (especially if they have high AC and other defenses that are high)..there really isn't any choice. If the PCs realize the danger, they should flee or try to avoid. If there was a chink in the armor so to speak, the PCs will have to make more meaningful decisions. Perhaps they can divide and conquer, or if there is only a small number of biggies, they can take a chance, and cut and run when they realize the encounter is going "sour." Thirdly, if the base or core is flatter, groups can always add bonuses "to hit" or to "AC" to flavor their own campaigns as they like. If they want PCs to feel more heroic and deadly...apply +1 or +2 for training...or grant them magic to help them. It is always easier to add than to take away. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Doing away with "Bigger Fish" problem.
Top