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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AngryPurpleCyclops" data-source="post: 4707245" data-attributes="member: 82732">That's a lot more complicated than +1 per tier.  No calculations, just add it when you make the level.  The MW system is flawed for a lot of reasons.  We're already putting a lot of pressure on the magic item system to "keep pace" and make sure everyone is getting +X at certain stages but there are going to be lots of exceptions on magic items.  The +1 per tier corrects more uniformly and doesn't punish powers without the implement/weapon keywords.I'm not sure this is correct.  By level 9 a pc has 3 dailies and 4 encounters, not including magic items.  This means the PC can reliably fire 5 rounds in nearly every encounter with a more powerful effect.  At level 2, you can fire something other than an at will only once per encounter unless you burn your daily.  I would say that much more damage comes from encounters and dailies the higher level you get (though at level 21 there is a shift on the graph due to at-wills getting pumped.)I'm sadly forced to agree.  I'll just refuse to buy more material at some point (as soon as i see that the original material is becoming obsolete) and cap the campaign there.  I like having 20 classes to choose from it makes party builds so much more varied, but only if all 20 classes are viable. I think type two was created to level the playing field between the old school players who had the power 9 and those that didn't.  The upside was that they could keep moving type II forward to new material so the market was never saturate and people always needed new cards. This kept tournament play economically viable for new players (allowing an expanded market) as they could join at any point and not have to worry about catching up with collections that were massively deeper than theirs.  Yup.16's are probably the most common primary stat, then coupled with a race that enhances primary stat for a cheap 18.  I prefer, 16, 14, 13, 13, 12, 8, but it's similar and depends on where your second +2 winds up.pretty good point, the 10% slide is not totally broken but this fails to address that N+7 monsters are part of the game.  when you're 21st level you'll potentially be swinging at 41-44AC with only a +5 weapon, +6 stat, +10 level, +3 prof.  +24 vs 42 AC is not promising.  Suddenly that +2 is a lot more important.  The red dragon could be on the table for 26th level pc's  The reality of the math is not seen by anecdotally picking a level for the monsters and a level for the pc's.  The reality is to read the rules for monster generation.  +1 to each defense per level. expressed as X+level pg 184 of the dmg  It's right there in black and white.  More monsters will come down the road.  They will be roughly based upon this model. If you're not getting +1 ATT per level from stats, magic, levels, you're falling behind plain and simple.  Since monster hit points are getting larger proportionally as well, hitting 15% less often might add up to a lot more rounds of combat and certainly greater chance of TPK (as well as grindspace issues)A lot of the resources and options they have are already being factored in.  More options for what kind of attack and more damage from those attacks, sure, but the attacks still need to hit.  yes against the bbeg you need to work to get penalties on him or gain flanking (by definition the solos are suffering from limited actions per turn compared to mobs and more injured by debilitating effects)This is trying to sweep the math problem under the rug and blame encounter design in it's stead.  DnD is a very very stale game if every encounter is X number of level N monsters where X is the party size and N is the party level.  One of this designs most elegant features is the encounter design methodology.  The ranges of levels both for overall encounter and individual threats coupled with the exp budget is a masterful piece of work.  Anyone who has ever designed a game or worked on balancing games, can see the genius in the system.  It gives the widest possible range for DM's to be creative and unique with while still preserving balance.  This allows for encounters with a lot of texture/flavor/granularity.   The designers have basically admitted that there's a gap in their math.  The players have known this for a while, you're free to ban anything you like in your game but suggesting the problem isn't real is plainly false.</blockquote>

Verification