Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5847240" data-attributes="member: 82106">Yeah, I agree. I think what has to be explained is that there are 2 things at work here. RPGs (pretty much, and certainly any likely flavor of D&D) always have increments of 1, you never get to make your increments in things less than that and be meaningful. Furthermore using bigger dice, like say d100, is awkward as well, and again unlikely to ever be the case in D&D for most things. Given that you really do need to start your scale bases some ways away from zero for anything that isn't flat like to-hit. Otherwise at best your options are someone has '1' of something and even having another guy have a '2' in that thing is a 2:1 ratio, which you have already perfectly illustrated is into a problematic range right off for at least some game elements.I'd also argue that setups like 'wizards are just inherently incompetent at melee combat compared to other PCs or other options they can take' is crushing the expressiveness of the system. If I can make a wizard who can competently swing a sword, then the system is giving me extra options that might be worthwhile to me as a player. I might well LIKE to play that wizard. As it is now 4e or other versions of D&D require making a whole other class with a different implementation to get a wizard that can swing a sword (IE I can make a swordmage, not the same thing, or I can use some complicated hybriding/MCing mechanics that don't actually produce great results). If I can have a BASELINE where the wizard CAN use a sword and have it be at least an option that will work, if not his best choice, then it is MUCH MUCH easier to add an option (or just reuse one that other classes use) to increase that option a bit.  I can have my wizard that has a decent Magic Missile and a decent sword stroke, and I've done this without adding a lot of complexity to the the system, maybe not adding anything that wouldn't be there anyway.The upshot being this is a direct result of something like say having damage bonus start at a +5 baseline. The wizard can swing a sword at 1d8+5, the fighter might be at 1d8+10. The ratio is now 9.5/14.5 or a bit better than 2:3. The wizard is in no danger of being an excellent swordsman, but if he wants to be a decent one and there's a "get a +5 damage bonus" feat, then he can shift it to 14.5/20.5 (compared to the fighter taking that option, which we assume he will). The wizard never catches up, but he can become competent and fill the 'gish' archetype.What is the cost of this? Nothing much really. We're all adding damage bonuses already. The damage rolls are less swingy now of course, but is that a bad thing? Damage rolls add some tension because now and then there's the question of "is this hit going to kill or not?" but that question isn't any less frequently coming up or less interesting, nor any less dependent on chance, then with low or non-existent damage bonuses. I think we all understand there's some basic aversion to having big numbers just for the sake of big numbers, but shifting the baseline for some things up a few points isn't at all the same thing as number inflation. It is just starting the numbers at a slightly higher number, the numbers need not grow any faster than they have to based on the power curve. That growth is independent of the starting point and a whole other discussion.</blockquote>

Verification