Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="tetrasodium" data-source="post: 8863138" data-attributes="member: 93670">Trying to touch some of your points in the most logical order I'll start with your fighter popularity.&nbsp; in 3.x the base classes were just that &amp; pretty much everyone jumped off to some PrC by 5 or so, trying to compare the popularity of any one base class to the 75654754344654 PrCs &amp; claim it as a meaningful data point is a bit odd.&nbsp; In the context of my being asked if &quot;any edition of d&amp;d avoided these issues&quot; though there were plenty of 1/1 &amp; 2/3 BaB classes &amp; PrCs that got multiple attacks during the span of a normal campaign. That common occurrence of +6/+1 BaB &amp; better on PCs&nbsp; makes how the iterative attack penalty played out &amp; interacts with system math relevant.&nbsp; The way that played out is very different from <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/how-to-bound-the-bounded-accuracy-in-magic-items-for-1d-d.693894/post-8862105" target="_blank">your initial asserrtion</a> of &quot;it's not fun for players to keep missing&quot; because it served a very different function of making later attacks that roll well an exciting rather than mundane thing. Now 5e swings the other way with the odds stacked &amp; narrowed so far in favor of success that even getting lucky on on rolls tends to be squarely in the same realm of that twilight zone episode I referenced earlier. That stacking of the odds &amp; narrowing of chance has direct negative effects limiting the GM's ability to tune the game for the group they have if that group differs too much from bounded accuracy's expected 2-3 player tier1 to low-mid tier2&nbsp; group of PCs. I agree that most groups would heal up using spells but doing that left the group a bit vulnerable &amp; wasn't something the group felt comfortable trying to dare the gm when told that taking a rest &quot;here&quot; seems like a bad idea.&nbsp; System differences came into play at that point.&nbsp; I do not however think that the problems with 5e's math are a personal opinion though because it's an objective fact that bounded accuracy was designed primarily for a certain groupsize &amp; level range.&nbsp; From there it's easy to show how other design changes make it more difficult for a GM to adjust the core math to slide back into being bounded for the group of players &amp; PCs.&nbsp; If 5e came with a very narrow band of levels &amp; said that a GM should never have more than X players because of BA then we'd be talking about ways for the GM to stay within it rather than the problems that arise &amp; needless problems that arise in shifting the bounds... but it doesn't say that for obvious reasons &amp; the GM is left attempting to correct it in a system hostile to correction.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="tetrasodium, post: 8863138, member: 93670"] Trying to touch some of your points in the most logical order I'll start with your fighter popularity. in 3.x the base classes were just that & pretty much everyone jumped off to some PrC by 5 or so, trying to compare the popularity of any one base class to the 75654754344654 PrCs & claim it as a meaningful data point is a bit odd. In the context of my being asked if "any edition of d&d avoided these issues" though there were plenty of 1/1 & 2/3 BaB classes & PrCs that got multiple attacks during the span of a normal campaign. That common occurrence of +6/+1 BaB & better on PCs makes how the iterative attack penalty played out & interacts with system math relevant. The way that played out is very different from [URL='https://www.enworld.org/threads/how-to-bound-the-bounded-accuracy-in-magic-items-for-1d-d.693894/post-8862105']your initial asserrtion[/URL] of "it's not fun for players to keep missing" because it served a very different function of making later attacks that roll well an exciting rather than mundane thing. Now 5e swings the other way with the odds stacked & narrowed so far in favor of success that even getting lucky on on rolls tends to be squarely in the same realm of that twilight zone episode I referenced earlier. That stacking of the odds & narrowing of chance has direct negative effects limiting the GM's ability to tune the game for the group they have if that group differs too much from bounded accuracy's expected 2-3 player tier1 to low-mid tier2 group of PCs. I agree that most groups would heal up using spells but doing that left the group a bit vulnerable & wasn't something the group felt comfortable trying to dare the gm when told that taking a rest "[I]here[/I]" seems like a bad idea. System differences came into play at that point. I do not however think that the problems with 5e's math are a personal opinion though because it's an objective fact that bounded accuracy was designed primarily for a certain groupsize & level range. From there it's easy to show how other design changes make it more difficult for a GM to adjust the core math to slide back into being bounded for the group of players & PCs. [I]If[/I] 5e came with a very narrow band of levels & said that a GM should never have more than X players because of BA then we'd be talking about ways for the GM to stay within it rather than the problems that arise & needless problems that arise in shifting the bounds... but it doesn't say that for obvious reasons & the GM is left attempting to correct it in a system hostile to correction . [/QUOTE]

Verification