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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 5927572" data-attributes="member: 6668292">I can't XP you currently (the system appears to be disabled still), but I basically agree. I flattened the math in my game. But, I was replying to how some increases to skills/attacks/etc. play a part into the believability of the game, especially in a sandbox as opposed to "always fighting level appropriate enemies" or the like.I like flatter math. I like a good amount of progression, though, because it lets me have more fine control over the story implication of what each bonus represents. In my RPG, a professionally skilled warrior gets +7 to attacks at hit die 4 (hit die 4 is the average settled adult). So, I know what a +7 bonus to attacks within the context of the game when I compare it to other things (this bear attacks at +8, or this king attacks at +6).Where I start to question things is what the bonuses mean in 5e. What does +6 to attack mean in 5e? Has attack bonus nearly stopped describing the fiction now, and has that responsibility been passed mostly to hit points? Is the same true of AC and hit points? How does this affect things like poison and falling? That is, if having more hit points means you're better at dodging/deflecting the blow, does getting hit by a poisoned weapon still poison you? If so, does every "hit" mean you get scratched, or do poisoned weapons land more hits than they used to?These have been questions in past editions, too, of course. But, if you had AC that scaled enough, then the questions would be asked less. Ten levels from now, that kobold probably won't hit you with that poisoned weapon, so you dodged/deflected it. Maybe they'll put a hit point threshold on a lot of things now. Maybe you can only get poisoned if you have X hit points or less, where X varies depending on the poison. That still leaves the question of falling damage and HP, but that's a different thing altogether.At any rate, yes, I like flatter math, and I think that a slower progression is good for the game. In my RPG, "exceptionally skilled" warriors (the highest on the chart) go from about +6 to attacks at hit die 1 to +19 to attacks at hit die 20. This is definitely reeled in from, say, 3.5 D&D. But, I still like having that fine-controlled sense of what each bonus means within the fiction of the game world. The more balanced and accurately attuned moving parts, the better, in my mind. Then again, I guess that breaks down somewhat with a highly "modular" system, huh?So, yeah. Sorry for the long post. I like flat math, and I even like the idea of it being tighter than my RPG by a good deal. I'm just not sure how much I like the idea of hit points picking up the slack that attacks and AC used to fulfill within defining the fiction of the game. I'll just wait and see. As always, play what you like <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    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification