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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="helium3" data-source="post: 4101360" data-attributes="member: 31301">It's actually not that they're trying to "DM-Proof" the game. That's just a strawman that people like to proffer because it gets a more visceral response from the reader.The truth (IMO) goes something like this. The main problem with 3E is that, while the algorithm-esque method for building characters and monsters seems to promise an inherently balanced game, in reality it fails to do so. Why? Because players simply have too much freedom to select feats and spells and purchase items that render assumptions the system makes about AC, ATK, DMG and HP totally incorrect. In a sense, this is part of that whole "extended sweet spot" thing they've been talking about.At low levels, the sweet spot doesn't exist because characters are way too easy to kill with a couple of good rolls on the part of the DM and a couple of bad rolls on the part of the player. The solution to this is pretty easy and we already know this is happening in 4E. You simply boost the number of initial hitpoints a character starts out with.At higher levels, things get trickier because you have to remove options that allow players to make characters that break the assumptions but still provide meaningful options that allow players to differentiate their characters from the others. There are a couple of ways to do this. One is that you strip out most items, powers, feats and abilities that allow characters to permanently increase their ATK, DMG, AC and HP. The ones that you leave in are tightly constrained, either by linking them directly to level or by making the pool of options much much smaller and therefore easier to monitor for problems.What does this have to do with rings? Well, rings have traditionally been one of the ways to permanently increase your character's AC. In 4E, the designers could have simply stated "rings never provide a bonus to AC" but I hunch they figured this wouldn't go over very well. By linking the number of rings that could be worn to level, they constrain characters to getting a specific AC bonus at a specific time in the game. I suspect that in 4E, there will be a single ring that will provide a bonus to AC and it won't be +1. It'll be +2 or +3. But that'll be it. And you won't be able to wear it until 10th level. Maybe there will be a better ring that you can wear at 20th level and it'll give you a +4 or a +6 bonus.</blockquote>

Verification