Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 7519388" data-attributes="member: 6696971">I noted the problem above here directly to you (citing precisely the Tier section that you're citing above).  I'll requote it:Its not the fact that it canvasses default tiers (which harken to 4e's default tiers, but (a) Wizards are massively more powerful in 5e than they are in 4e while (b) a lack of Epic Destinies and mythic-provoking endgame features for Fighters don't produce mythical martial heroes) or that they canvas potential drift.  Its the facts that the above sits right alongside the fundamentals of 5e; (1) the aim to keep obstacles/threats still relevant (pretty much exclusively for martial characters, as spellcasters can obviate them as they almost completely don't have to interact with the system maths to deliver their noncombat obstacle defeating payload) at all levels and (2) "natural language" and the setting-baselined internal causality that it, and other advice, connotes).There is an ENORMOUS tension between (1) and (2) and action resolution adjudication via genre logic.  Its trivially true as you can see people carving out a dozen varying positions on any given obstacle or action resolution adjudication on any thread.  And this is a tiny slice of the 5e-playing-world.  Extrapolating it across the entire population of 5e GMs will create a massive variance (in first principles, in procedures, and in outcomes) among GMs.And this shouldn't be a surprise!  This was one of the fundamental OSR design imperatives outlined explicitly (and no doubt a big part of the OSR push during consultation) by the 5e designers (down with table symmetry across the gaming populace)!I don't see how this is a "level of obscurity" and I'd need to see "the other levels" in order to determine if there is any obscurity.  This is just a product of the collision of genre fiction/tropes meeting system maths (and more granular ones) over 30 levels vs system maths over 10 levels.  PCs are going to be dealing with roughly the same fiction/conflicts/tropes in each tier with (perhaps) minor intratier scaling and breakpoints at 11 and 21.  D&D 4e was devised to roughly have a 65ish % median chance for success in action declarations.  Apparently, designers have recently sprung up on the premise that the gaming sweet spot is when roughly 2/3 of action declarations succeed and 1/3 fail (and hopefully something interesting happens).  Its no coincidence that the initial PBtA bell curves at a shade under 2d6+1 as the average, yields about 1/3 failure rate.  This isn't hidden.  The maths and related design impetus couldn't be more transparent (which has been one of the great historical complaints by detractors about 4e) and was openly talked about in design articles and in both Dungeon and Dragon mags.</blockquote>

Verification