NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mustrum_Ridcully" data-source="post: 3769520" data-attributes="member: 710">Though it's still not perfect, I think. If you can't manage to put the decking... err, hacking act within a combat, nothing changes. (I played SR 4 the second time last week end, and the Technomancer hacked into a secured Comlink. The rules are a lot less clunky, but since the scenario wasn't during a combat, it was just his time to do something for some time.)I think I might have "targeted" the wrong goal in my post. I was more worried about the typical notion of "power creep" between editions, which wasn't your point.But still, maybe I can phrase it in another way so that it still gets my point across (even though it's not really necessary, I guess, because it doesn't really add something): You cannot look at a AD&D monster and check if it has more hit points than an equivalent monster in D&D 3.x to see if something changed balance-wise. You have to look at at the damage of the wizard in AD&D and D&D. It happens to be that they are the same (but the hit points of the monster are not), which leads to the change in balance - Wizards in AD&D could meaningful affect a combat if out of spells, Wizards in D&D 3.x have little chance to do so. So, my point is, you have to compare the wizards damage to the monsters hit points within one edition. Only once you made this comparision, you can compare this ratio to that of another edition. <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=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification