Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ainamacar" data-source="post: 5795667" data-attributes="member: 70709">I think whether addition or subtraction is better is a bit of a red herring.&nbsp; The lesson I take from programming is writing good interfaces is hard.&nbsp; (Having written some less-than-stunning interfaces in my time.)&nbsp; That's because interfaces mediate the interaction between modules, whether they are being added or taken away, and it is in the breakdown of that interaction where problems typically occur.Whatever framework exists for 5e needs just enough of a shared language so that the various modules know how to talk to each other without knowing what other modules are being used.&nbsp; For example, a wounds system might redefine how hit points work in addition to adding &quot;wound&quot; to the game's lexicon, but other module's interaction with this one must be done through the hit point interface.&nbsp; Of course, maybe the framework also defines &quot;condition&quot;, in which case the wounds module merely introduces another kind of condition that interacts with other modules in a predictable fashion, but also has a bunch of mechanics unique to itself.I don't see any reason why attack/defense/skill scaling can't be done in the same way.&nbsp; At a basic level the way attacks, defenses, and skills operate does not change whether they scale or not.&nbsp; Besides guidelines for building encounters, what really changes if one goes from +1 per 4 levels to +1 per 2 levels?&nbsp; More difficult would be increasing the disparity between low defenses and high defenses, etc. with level, which is easy to implement (increasing select ability scores for example) but has broader implications for how the game feels, particularly for swinginess and the relative benefits of specialization.&nbsp; The d20 can only handle so much variance before things get ugly, and I expect the default for 5e here will be much more tightly controlled than in past editions.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ainamacar, post: 5795667, member: 70709"] I think whether addition or subtraction is better is a bit of a red herring. The lesson I take from programming is [I]writing good interfaces is hard[/I]. (Having written some less-than-stunning interfaces in my time.) That's because interfaces mediate the interaction between modules, whether they are being added or taken away, and it is in the breakdown of that interaction where problems typically occur. Whatever framework exists for 5e needs just enough of a shared language so that the various modules know how to talk to each other without knowing what other modules are being used. For example, a wounds system might redefine how hit points work in addition to adding "wound" to the game's lexicon, but other module's interaction with this one must be done through the hit point interface. Of course, maybe the framework also defines "condition", in which case the wounds module merely introduces another kind of condition that interacts with other modules in a predictable fashion, but also has a bunch of mechanics unique to itself. I don't see any reason why attack/defense/skill scaling can't be done in the same way. At a basic level the way attacks, defenses, and skills operate does not change whether they scale or not. Besides guidelines for building encounters, what really changes if one goes from +1 per 4 levels to +1 per 2 levels? More difficult would be increasing the disparity between low defenses and high defenses, etc. with level, which is easy to implement (increasing select ability scores for example) but has broader implications for how the game feels, particularly for swinginess and the relative benefits of specialization. The d20 can only handle so much variance before things get ugly, and I expect the default for 5e here will be much more tightly controlled than in past editions. [/QUOTE]

Verification