Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="slobster" data-source="post: 6004698" data-attributes="member: 6693711">No problem. A lot of allowance should be made online for statements that come off more harshly than they were intended.As it happens I agree (somewhat) with your point. 4E was built with explicit expectations of attack bonuses and defenses based on character level, both for PCs and monsters. This was at least in part a response to the 3.x era, where high level characters had such wildly divergent bonuses that an enemy that the fighter could hit on a 2 might very well be impossible to hit for the sorcerer, even on a natural 20. Bonuses could also vary wildly based just on build. Two level 20 fighters at different levels of optimization could have attack bonuses that vary by double digits. This makes it difficult for a GM to design an encounter which is challenging for one of his players without being overwhelming/a cake walk for the other.To the extent that 4E accomplished what it set out to do (in this regard), it was a success. To the extent that many people dislike the end result, they quite understandably consider it a failure.That might not be a good (or short) way of putting it, but unfortunately we have to tread lightly these days. If I were being pithy, I might say &quot;4E's codified math system was a response to 3.5's system, which fell out of whack as levels increased and some characters tended to fall far behind their allies. 5E seems to be a response to concerns that 4E went too far in that regard.&quot; Then you could go into why you think they are wrong/right to do so.Really it doesn't matter anymore. We're all friends now, so we can move on. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="slobster, post: 6004698, member: 6693711"] No problem. A lot of allowance should be made online for statements that come off more harshly than they were intended. As it happens I agree (somewhat) with your point. 4E was built with explicit expectations of attack bonuses and defenses based on character level, both for PCs and monsters. This was at least in part a response to the 3.x era, where high level characters had such wildly divergent bonuses that an enemy that the fighter could hit on a 2 might very well be impossible to hit for the sorcerer, even on a natural 20. Bonuses could also vary wildly based just on build. Two level 20 fighters at different levels of optimization could have attack bonuses that vary by double digits. This makes it difficult for a GM to design an encounter which is challenging for one of his players without being overwhelming/a cake walk for the other. To the extent that 4E accomplished what it set out to do (in this regard), it was a success. To the extent that many people dislike the end result, they quite understandably consider it a failure. That might not be a good (or short) way of putting it, but unfortunately we have to tread lightly these days. If I were being pithy, I might say "4E's codified math system was a response to 3.5's system, which fell out of whack as levels increased and some characters tended to fall far behind their allies. 5E seems to be a response to concerns that 4E went too far in that regard." Then you could go into why you think they are wrong/right to do so. Really it doesn't matter anymore. We're all friends now, so we can move on. :D [/QUOTE]

Verification