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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MarkChevallier" data-source="post: 5782638" data-attributes="member: 55538">This proposal seems to be grounded in the notion that challenges in the game should be level specific; this is what the 4E math tried to achieve.This isn't the case in previous editions - a DC20 wall to climb in 3E was DC20 regardless of the level you might be. (Although of course, a GM might introduce harder walls to climb as the game progressed, the "reality" behind it would be that the wall was a different wall with fewer handholds, and you might well expect to encounter dozens of old, easy walls for every super-wall you met.)Monsters were similar - a high level monster wouldn't have to have an AC within a range based on its level (which in turn, would be in a range based on the PCs level). It's AC would sometimes be much higher and sometimes much lower than you expect, if it made sense for that monster. If so, there would often be other ways to defeat it, or it might have other defenses that made it hard to overcome, or it's challenge might not necessarily be represented in the field of combat.In any case, I think you'd run into scaling issues with this system - it'd be change the relative toughness of level 20 to level 1 opponents (as you recognise) which would change the nature of the game slightly, I think. A level 20 wizard, for example, simply by virtue of their new magic and spells, might be significantly tougher than what we might call a level 20 "basic" fighter, who doesn't have a significantly better to-hit or defense to compensate.</blockquote>

Verification