Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 9561933" data-attributes="member: 29398">Given that the common denominator in your various groups is you, you might want to look in the mo=irror on this one. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />However, that doesn't mean that abstraction ethos needs to be exported to the rest of the game's design.Fine.&nbsp; Better than fine, in fact.&nbsp; But they've no reason to complain if-when their characters get killed.That's just it - the last 25 years of D&amp;D design has, in some ways, sucked monkey turds.Stop being threats, or merely become less of a threat?That's the difference here.&nbsp; As an example, using something akin to 3e as the comparitor and rounding off any long-tail decimals, here's what I'd like to see.&nbsp; The first column is character or party level, the second is a party of that level's rough chance in percent to knock off a level-6-appropriate opponent in something like 3e, the third is closer to what I'd like to see:1 - 0 - 52 - 0 - 153 - 0 - 304 - 5 - 555 - 75 - 706 - 95 - 857 - 100 - 908 - 100 - 959 - 100 - 99The third-number sequence represents a much flatter power curve than WotC has ever given us.In RAW 1e or in my system, if said PC had a giant-slayer sword and a lot of luck, sure.&nbsp; In 5e, I'd believe this only after I'd seen it - maybe.My favourites are the traps where the trigger is here but the effect happens somewhere or sometime else entirely. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />And my point is that &quot;This is dangerous&quot; can (and realistically will) encompass a huge great variety of situations and it's on the PCs/players to narrow it down from there by seeking further info before standing in.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lanefan, post: 9561933, member: 29398"] Given that the common denominator in your various groups is you, you might want to look in the mo=irror on this one. :) However, that doesn't mean that abstraction ethos needs to be exported to the rest of the game's design. Fine. Better than fine, in fact. But they've no reason to complain if-when their characters get killed. That's just it - the last 25 years of D&D design has, in some ways, sucked monkey turds. Stop being threats, or merely become less of a threat? That's the difference here. As an example, using something akin to 3e as the comparitor and rounding off any long-tail decimals, here's what I'd like to see. The [B]first[/B] column is character or party level, the [B]second[/B] is a party of that level's rough chance in percent to knock off a level-6-appropriate opponent in something like 3e, the [B]third[/B] is closer to what I'd like to see: 1 - 0 - 5 2 - 0 - 15 3 - 0 - 30 4 - 5 - 55 5 - 75 - 70 6 - 95 - 85 7 - 100 - 90 8 - 100 - 95 9 - 100 - 99 The third-number sequence represents a much flatter power curve than WotC has ever given us. In RAW 1e or in my system, if said PC had a giant-slayer sword and a lot of luck, sure. In 5e, I'd believe this only after I'd seen it - maybe. My favourites are the traps where the trigger is here but the effect happens somewhere or sometime else entirely. :) And my point is that "This is dangerous" can (and realistically will) encompass a huge great variety of situations and it's on the PCs/players to narrow it down from there by seeking further info before standing in. [/QUOTE]

Verification