Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Upper_Krust" data-source="post: 3754656" data-attributes="member: 326">Hey guys! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />apologies for coming late to this party, worked nightshift for each of the past seven nights.Its going to take me a while to catch-up with all the posts, but I am sure I will.One point I will address now, are the comments made by Andy Collins.There are two ways to flatten the power curve. The first is to heavily stack the first level (or base character). An example of this type of progression would be WEG's d6 Star Wars, where characters start out fairly powerful and thus advancement means less. In D&D terms 'heroes' could start out at 3rd-level (for instance) or some equivalent, although it would be called 1st-level. Just like you can have a 1st-level Ogre (who is more powerful than a 1st-level human), you could have a 1st-level 'Hero'.The second method would seemingly be the 'drop off'. This would be a sort of tapering of the 1st/2nd Edition design (though not as obviously abrupt) whereby the actual power of a single level 'unit' is reduced over time.So that if you compared the actual benefits of Level 1 with those gained at Level 30, the level 30 benefits would be notably weaker.Personally I think the former system has some merit, whereas the latter system is self-defeating. It will be interesting to see which they have plumped for.Indirectly, it seems as though they are stretching out the current 20 levels to 30 levels.Andy's reasoning that reducing unit jumps of power will allow monsters to have a greater shelf life in your campaign is a valid one. However, its a false dawn if they are simply flattening out the power curve (which is what the current, albeit limited, evidence implies).</blockquote>

Verification