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
*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
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Game design trap - Starting too close to zero.
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="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5846554" data-attributes="member: 82106"><p>Yeah, I don't think it takes a mathematician to understand the math of an RPG (having a math degree I would have to say there's nothing in 4e math-wise that shouldn't be readily accessible to 8th grade algebra basically). </p><p></p><p>I think there are a couple separate issues here. It is true, flat linear bonuses like to-hit really can start anywhere and the ratio between +1 and +5 won't generally matter for these cases. OTOH I think the "nobody has penalties" concept is valid. It never really feels all that good to be doing something like swinging at -N. Since we can fairly well establish a base minimum weapon competency why not have that be +0? Sure, no PC is likely to be at +0, but so what? It works fine in 4e where +3 is really about the lowest bonus you ever see. Nobody bothers to even make attacks below that if they can possibly help it (IE you never see the wizard swinging his staff with a net +2 to-hit except maybe if he happens to get an OA and might as well give it a shot). I don't think a PC can even get a worst to-hit base than -1 in 4e and that's a corner case.</p><p></p><p>The top end of the scale and rate of progression are a different issue and not really part of this topic, but it seems to me that again it matters not a bit how big or small the base starting number is. Maybe the game only ever allows a max of a +20 or so, but that's a matter of progression of the power curve.</p><p></p><p>Anyway, I agree with the OP on the basic premise when it comes to things like hit points. A 2:1 ratio is a lot more reasonable than the potential 20:1 ratio that existed in AD&D (level 1 16+ CON ranger vs level 1 PC without CON bonus). The numbers could scale back a bit from 4e's numbers and it wouldn't be terrible, though I think the 4e numbers are pretty close to the ideal based on typical weapon damage and hits to knock someone down. I think a 16 hit point PC is really about the minimum that makes sense.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 5846554, member: 82106"] Yeah, I don't think it takes a mathematician to understand the math of an RPG (having a math degree I would have to say there's nothing in 4e math-wise that shouldn't be readily accessible to 8th grade algebra basically). I think there are a couple separate issues here. It is true, flat linear bonuses like to-hit really can start anywhere and the ratio between +1 and +5 won't generally matter for these cases. OTOH I think the "nobody has penalties" concept is valid. It never really feels all that good to be doing something like swinging at -N. Since we can fairly well establish a base minimum weapon competency why not have that be +0? Sure, no PC is likely to be at +0, but so what? It works fine in 4e where +3 is really about the lowest bonus you ever see. Nobody bothers to even make attacks below that if they can possibly help it (IE you never see the wizard swinging his staff with a net +2 to-hit except maybe if he happens to get an OA and might as well give it a shot). I don't think a PC can even get a worst to-hit base than -1 in 4e and that's a corner case. The top end of the scale and rate of progression are a different issue and not really part of this topic, but it seems to me that again it matters not a bit how big or small the base starting number is. Maybe the game only ever allows a max of a +20 or so, but that's a matter of progression of the power curve. Anyway, I agree with the OP on the basic premise when it comes to things like hit points. A 2:1 ratio is a lot more reasonable than the potential 20:1 ratio that existed in AD&D (level 1 16+ CON ranger vs level 1 PC without CON bonus). The numbers could scale back a bit from 4e's numbers and it wouldn't be terrible, though I think the 4e numbers are pretty close to the ideal based on typical weapon damage and hits to knock someone down. I think a 16 hit point PC is really about the minimum that makes sense. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Game design trap - Starting too close to zero.
Top