Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Theories regaurding the change in rules of D&D.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="mmadsen" data-source="post: 3701022" data-attributes="member: 1645"><p>While older editions did not have explicit wealth guidelines, they nonetheless had expectations about how much treasure was appropriate and how much gear a character should have at various levels.</p><p></p><p>The larger difference is that many old-school games involved low-level characters who were expected to die in their pursuit of treasure, not young heroes destined for greatness.</p><p>Over the years, D&D's designers have made a number of odd decisions about how "skills" (and other qualities) improve as a character progresses from level to level.</p><p></p><p>Look at the difference in a company of archers who are first-level vs. second-level Fighters. If you had no preconceived notions, what would you expect of "better" archers? Above all, you'd expect them to hit their targets more often. Perhaps the last thing on your list would be that they'd be more durable. Yet they have <em>twice</em> the hit points and only hit their targets, say, 45% of the time instead of 40%.</p><p></p><p>Now we add a skill system that recognizes that starting characters should have skills commensurate with a childhood and adolescence spent in training, or 4 ranks in the appropriate skills -- except for fighting, where a young knight or archer still has a BAB of +1. Anyway, the difference years of training, an entire apprenticeship, makes is +4, or +20%. Twin brothers who apprentice to different masters of different trades aren't much better or worse than one another at their respective trades. Odd</p><p>Levels have also gone up considerably, increasing hit points considerably without increasing damage nearly as much.</p><p></p><p>This has also changed the flavor of the game considerably. It used to be that a sword hit was disabling half the time. Now it's a good start -- and the first attack is <em>never</em> lethal, especially not when 0 hit points no longer means dead.</p><p>I don't think that has anything to do with political values; it's about game design. Choices have costs and benefits, and if a choice is early inferior -- it's "dominated" by another strategy -- then there's no point in including it in the game.</p><p>I think it only makes sense to measure how tough potential foes are, and it only makes sense to use the same scale we use for player characters. "This CR-4 monster is roughly as tough as a typical level-4 character with the expected level of gear."</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="mmadsen, post: 3701022, member: 1645"] While older editions did not have explicit wealth guidelines, they nonetheless had expectations about how much treasure was appropriate and how much gear a character should have at various levels. The larger difference is that many old-school games involved low-level characters who were expected to die in their pursuit of treasure, not young heroes destined for greatness. Over the years, D&D's designers have made a number of odd decisions about how "skills" (and other qualities) improve as a character progresses from level to level. Look at the difference in a company of archers who are first-level vs. second-level Fighters. If you had no preconceived notions, what would you expect of "better" archers? Above all, you'd expect them to hit their targets more often. Perhaps the last thing on your list would be that they'd be more durable. Yet they have [i]twice[/i] the hit points and only hit their targets, say, 45% of the time instead of 40%. Now we add a skill system that recognizes that starting characters should have skills commensurate with a childhood and adolescence spent in training, or 4 ranks in the appropriate skills -- except for fighting, where a young knight or archer still has a BAB of +1. Anyway, the difference years of training, an entire apprenticeship, makes is +4, or +20%. Twin brothers who apprentice to different masters of different trades aren't much better or worse than one another at their respective trades. Odd Levels have also gone up considerably, increasing hit points considerably without increasing damage nearly as much. This has also changed the flavor of the game considerably. It used to be that a sword hit was disabling half the time. Now it's a good start -- and the first attack is [i]never[/i] lethal, especially not when 0 hit points no longer means dead. I don't think that has anything to do with political values; it's about game design. Choices have costs and benefits, and if a choice is early inferior -- it's "dominated" by another strategy -- then there's no point in including it in the game. I think it only makes sense to measure how tough potential foes are, and it only makes sense to use the same scale we use for player characters. "This CR-4 monster is roughly as tough as a typical level-4 character with the expected level of gear." [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Theories regaurding the change in rules of D&D.
Top