Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5061518" data-attributes="member: 82106">Except this is simply the way RPGs ARE. There is always a power curve. The power curve on bonuses in 4e is actually IDENTICAL to what it was in all past editions. Fighters in Old D&D, 1e, and 2e got a +1/2 levels to hit, other classes get a slightly lower progression but also mostly had spells which gave a save progression of about +1/2 levels. Its funny that people criticize the '4e math', but its the same math that existed in all previous editions of the game. It was just a little bit hidden under the hood.The problem with say flattening this curve more than it is now is that the curve steepness is really set by the most powerful thing you are going to ever fight in the game and the rate of progression players need to stay interested. The game could end when you get up to fighting say Ogres and getting there could be a much flatter progression, though each level gained would be pretty trivial. The game could have 500 levels of play, but for characters to progress acceptably to keep players interested you'd be leveling up once an hour. Sure the curve would be shallow either way, but I'm kind of skeptical those would be as interesting games as what we do have.The problem with having monsters and PCs use exactly the same progression is that they are not exactly the same kind of thing. Suppose the PCs had +1 per level just like the monsters do. There would be no room at all left over for bonuses of any kind. You couldn't have a single solitary +1 to-hit added on to the character in its entire 30 levels beyond that. Even if you DID add a couple of pluses that would just mean you're math is broken again.There really weren't much in the way of viable design choices open to the 4e designers once the basic game concept of a level based game with armor class and a d20 hit mechanic are established. Things pretty much only work one way from there.</blockquote>

Verification