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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Terramotus" data-source="post: 4038248" data-attributes="member: 7220">I think you're totally off-base, at least as regards the stated design goals of 4E.  Obviously we haven't seen the system, but the changes to "the math" have been stated to be for the purpose of keeping the numbers in the widely accepted "sweet spot" of 3E.  The reason that's the sweet spot is because the system works well at that level.  Characters tend not to have overwhelming bonuses that completely override the die result in that range so that they always succeed, or bonuses to saves so low that they always fail.  That looks like preserving the importance of the die roll.Perspective also matters.  Sure, with the new crit rules you're less likely to face instant death from a foe who crits you who's optimized for critting.  So from that perspective, uncertainty is diminished.  But at the same time, rules that follow more predictable result trees are easier to balance.  So there will probably be fewer opportunities for rules abuse, especially when the desire to do away with the multiple stacking bonuses from items and such is factored in.  So while in some areas the uncertainty is reduced, the net effect is that the highly optimized character won't have such a huge advantage against a poorly optimized character (or NPC or monster, for that matter).  That seems like an overall gain to me with regard to importance of the die rolls.The only point I'll agree with you on is actual character death.  With the new death and dying system, and the lack of save-or-die spells, it seems obvious that the designers don't want a single die roll to equal a character's death unless the odds are truly overwhelming.</blockquote>

Verification