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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="skinnydwarf" data-source="post: 3162013" data-attributes="member: 7024">I don't know about the last 30 years.  But I think it has happened since 3e, but not for the reasons pointed to.  I don't think luck has been reduced so that experienced players can do well.  I think that the reduction of luck as a factor was a natural consequence of increasing the options available to players.Back in 2e, you had only so many options for your 9th level/whatver.  Some classes were more variable than others, of course, but optimization wasn't as much of an issue.  If you put two 9th level fighters against each other, chances were it would be luck that determined who won (assuming they had equal magic items).  Nowadays, with the variability of fighters at 9th level, luck is not necessarily going to determine the outcome, especially if one character is more optimized for the situation at hand.For example, lets take the example of Borlag vs. Snarlax vs. Bart.Borlag was created and optimized for one on one combat with big heavy foes, and he took lots of feats along those lines.Snarlax was created to fire arrows effectively from horseback and rain down pain upon his enemies from afar, and has feats along those lines.Bart was created to mow down lots of little baddies, like goblins, and has cleave/great cleave, etc.Depending on the situation, one of these fighters is going to do better.  In a straight up fight, fighter hacking at fighter, no horses, Borlag will probably prevail.  If horses are allowed in this one on one fight and there is room to maneuver, Snarlax will probably prevail.  If the fight is a bunch of little guys versus one fighter, Bart will probably prevail.</blockquote>

Verification