Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JohnSnow" data-source="post: 5848381" data-attributes="member: 32164">I think what the OP is getting at here is not really so much about the escalating numbers, but about making sure that there's enough design space at the low end of the system.Taking the combat example, if a "trained" fighter gets a bonus to hit at 1st-level of +5, then there's theoretically 4 levels of improvement that are better than no bonus, but less than that of someone trained. Let's say an average strength 1st-level commoner starts at +0 to hit. The fighter's bonus needs to be enough above that to allow the cleric, the rogue, and the wizard (and all the other classes) to fit "between."The degree of granularity you can accomplish in the system is limited by the availability of whole numbers. If the system starts with a trained fighter getting only a +1 bonus relative to the commoner, there's not enough design space to fit the other classes "in-between" the two. I need the fighter to have at least a +2 bonus, at which point, I could put the wizard at 0 (or even -1) the commoner at 0, and the thief and cleric at +1.Theoretically, of course, this can be accomplished with any appropriate range of whole numbers. But the wider the spread of numbers is, the more design space exists. Moreover, ratios can be important. By starting with larger numbers, we can theoretically preserve a decent ratio, while still allowing for enough design space to solidly differentiate the to-hit bonuses or hit points of the classes (or weapon damage codes, skill training levels, or whatever).Take the way health is assigned in the Dragon Age RPG, for example. The Mage starts at 20 + Con (roughly equivalent in magnitude to a Con bonus in D&D) + 1d6. The rogue starts 5 higher than the mage and the warrior starts 5 higher than THAT. From there, each class gains the same number of health (minus differences in Con) at each level.What this means is that the warrior starts out with slightly less than 50% more health than the mage, and the rogue is between the two. And, due to the relative emphasis each class places on their Con score, that distinction remains roughly consistent as the characters go up in level (without getting too far into the statistics). So, now we have enough design space for three classes, without them being too far apart, and which allows for each one to take more than a single hit in combat before dropping.There would be similar space (3 levels) in making the range of hit dice run from d4 to d8, or d6 to d10, (or even d8 to d12), but there's not a lot of distinction between them. And, moreover, the closer you start to 0, the more the first couple levels of competence gained end up mattering. For example, if a 6th-level character has 6 times the hit points of a 1st level one, that says something very different about the system than if he has twice the amount.Sure, you could achieve the same result by having each class gain, say, 1, 2, or 3 hit points as they level up (or any three numbers), but by starting the numbers larger, you open design space for different things to be accounted for (whole numbers, remember?), while still producing a flatter power curve.Make sense?</blockquote>

Verification