Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AaronOfBarbaria" data-source="post: 6776994" data-attributes="member: 6701872">One of my favorite things about 5th edition is that the range of characters that are absolutely able to contribute in a meaningful way is huge - in one of my campaigns there are characters with a couple of 18-20 scores or a trio of 16s, and this one character who is a melee-focused life cleric with a 13 strength and a 14 wisdom.The difference is barely even noticeable in actual play because the cleric hits with most of his attacks, and the other characters hit with most of their attacks too. It's not like in prior versions of D&amp;D where you could end up with one character class having the equivalent of +22 to-hit while the next best character class tops out at the equivalent of +10 and both are aiming at roll totals of 26-30 in order to hit relevant challenges, or where the game math was aiming at providing &quot;the best of the best&quot; with barely better than coin-toss odds of success against relevant challenges, so every point behind felt like a huge hit to ability to contribute - we're looking at &quot;succeed most of the time&quot; vs. &quot;succeed most of the time&quot; rather than &quot;succeed most of the time&quot; vs. &quot;fail most of the time&quot; until we get to characters of extreme improbability that have nothing but negative ability modifiers.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AaronOfBarbaria, post: 6776994, member: 6701872"] One of my favorite things about 5th edition is that the range of characters that are absolutely able to contribute in a meaningful way is huge - in one of my campaigns there are characters with a couple of 18-20 scores or a trio of 16s, and this one character who is a melee-focused life cleric with a 13 strength and a 14 wisdom. The difference is barely even noticeable in actual play because the cleric hits with most of his attacks, and the other characters hit with most of their attacks too. It's not like in prior versions of D&D where you could end up with one character class having the equivalent of +22 to-hit while the next best character class tops out at the equivalent of +10 and both are aiming at roll totals of 26-30 in order to hit relevant challenges, or where the game math was aiming at providing "the best of the best" with barely better than coin-toss odds of success against relevant challenges, so every point behind felt like a huge hit to ability to contribute - we're looking at "succeed most of the time" vs. "succeed most of the time" rather than "succeed most of the time" vs. "fail most of the time" until we get to characters of extreme improbability that have nothing but negative ability modifiers. [/QUOTE]

Verification