Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mustrum_Ridcully" data-source="post: 3768583" data-attributes="member: 710">I think one way to balance it better is to avoid overspecialization. Today, a 10th level Fighter has a 5 point advantage in attack bonus compared to a wizard of the same level as a base.Then, he might have gone the Weapon Focus route and have a further +2 to +4 points of difference to the wizard.Then, he has a &quot;raw&quot; ability score that is probably 3 points higher.Then, he has a magical item increasing this ability score, increasing it again by 2 points.Then, he has a magical weapon, increasing his attack by another 2-3 points compared to the wizard.This gives him a difference of around 17 points. This is nearly outside of the range of a d20 roll, which means that an enemy that the fighter can hit with a 50 % chance can only be hit by the wizard with a 5 % chance (thanks to natural 20s only!). The difference between wizard and fighter is probably the highest possible, but we are only at 10th level, not yet 20th, where the assumptions work pretty similar for Rogues and Clerics compared to Fighters.This is just balance across one level and for attacks. If we consider the difference between levels, similar comparisons turn up. Skills also have a similar problem (you usually have 0 ranks, 1 rank, 5 ranks, max ranks for a skill, plus an additional modifier that is usually higher if the skill has more ranks)So far, we have only discussed the quadratic advancement of characters. But we haven't taken into account that the method used to generate &quot;successes/hits&quot; relies only only the granularity of a d20. If D&amp;D numbers were as they are today, but we would use 2d20 (and 20 as base for AC and Saving Throw DCs instead of 10), the balancing would probably turn around differently at higher levels (but at low levels, it would make little difference what classes, equipment and other enhancement you have)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mustrum_Ridcully, post: 3768583, member: 710"] I think one way to balance it better is to avoid overspecialization. Today, a 10th level Fighter has a 5 point advantage in attack bonus compared to a wizard of the same level as a base. Then, he might have gone the Weapon Focus route and have a further +2 to +4 points of difference to the wizard. Then, he has a "raw" ability score that is probably 3 points higher. Then, he has a magical item increasing this ability score, increasing it again by 2 points. Then, he has a magical weapon, increasing his attack by another 2-3 points compared to the wizard. This gives him a difference of around 17 points. This is nearly outside of the range of a d20 roll, which means that an enemy that the fighter can hit with a 50 % chance can only be hit by the wizard with a 5 % chance (thanks to natural 20s only!). The difference between wizard and fighter is probably the highest possible, but we are only at 10th level, not yet 20th, where the assumptions work pretty similar for Rogues and Clerics compared to Fighters. This is just balance across one level and for attacks. If we consider the difference between levels, similar comparisons turn up. Skills also have a similar problem (you usually have 0 ranks, 1 rank, 5 ranks, max ranks for a skill, plus an additional modifier that is usually higher if the skill has more ranks) So far, we have only discussed the quadratic advancement of characters. But we haven't taken into account that the method used to generate "successes/hits" relies only only the granularity of a d20. If D&D numbers were as they are today, but we would use 2d20 (and 20 as base for AC and Saving Throw DCs instead of 10), the balancing would probably turn around differently at higher levels (but at low levels, it would make little difference what classes, equipment and other enhancement you have) [/QUOTE]

Verification