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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 5909323" data-attributes="member: 6668292">I addressed this:So, no, I don't think I was being disingenuous. As always, play what you like <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=":)" />Funny how that happens. But, again, my system can handle what you want as well.This depends on how you model gods. But, again, I was talking game theory, not method. You're stuck on my method, and I explicitly said that you didn't need to use my methods:I explicitly mentioned that you don't need to follow my methods in order to make a level 1 be able to meaningfully contribute to a level 15 party. I was just saying that it's possible, and that it maybe it should be something 5e could accomplish. I am not advocating toning down power level of 5e (though I think make for an easier to balance system).Well, my flattened math is probably a lot less flat than 5e seems to be aimed towards, but we'll see, since they admittedly haven't spoken much about it yet. Flattened math doesn't have to leave you out in the cold at all, because you can have tremendously flat math and still have epic progression. It'd be harder to work, but it'd be workable. You'd just need to show what you're capable of at different levels (you can't be hurt by creatures 2 levels less than you unless they roll a natural 20, and the like), but again, that's just game theory.(Besides, it's trivially easy to make hit die 15s immensely more survivable than hit die 5s: no more progressive penalties for being attacked more than once in a round. So, 100 arrows before would likely pincushion you, but now they just miss you, or you deflect them, or dodge them, or whatever. It's about as easy as adjusting the rate at which you recover healing surges, and would be exceptionally easy to include as an optional rule. But, this is a sidetrack, and really tangential to my point.)Another side note: as I said, what you're describing, about going to other planes to fight gods and the like, can be addressed, as I did in my last post to you:So, again, if you want to have big threats that only high level creatures can deal with, go for it. It's simply a play style issue, and it's entirely achievable in my system (which means other systems, with other means, could undoubtedly achieve that goal, too).I've seen such a creature in action in my RPG: the two-headed dragon that needed a specific poison to bypass its defenses. It passively healed some 36 damage per round, had 34 damage reduction, and had a spell resistance of 37. And that's when the two highest damage dealers passively dealt 1d10+21 and 3d10+22 damage. Just remove that weakness to poison, and it's impervious to damage and spells of low or even mid-level creatures. Put it on another "plane", start plane-hopping, and there you go. Heck, call it a demon lord.This is a matter of play style, and a single game can be designed in such a way that it supports a similar style of play (fighting 10 guys instead of 1) or radically different (plane-hopping while fighting demon lords). It's not reliant on level 1 characters contributing to level 15s.However, I do think balance is important. I think it'll be tricky with their three pillar approach, so we'll see what happens. But yes, balance is very, very important, to me. As always, play what you like <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=":)" />Perhaps, and I'm okay with that. Like I said, it's pretty easy to get this to be the case with a variety of rules, even with flatter math. Math is a simple way to differentiate "tiers" of play since it does so naturally, by forcing a slow transition on the players.Personally, I like a little more control over it, so that my one system can address whatever I need at the time. Am I playing a more gritty-style game? I'll use the optional rule where I take progressive penalties for more than one attack in a round (I'll assume that the more gonzo-leaning rule of no penalties is the default). If 5e is capable of giving that style of control, then I can have a game that allows for mundane soldiers to best me (Game of Thrones style), or something more highly fantastic (Wheel of Time, perhaps?).But, I still hold that flatter math is one necessary component of that style of game. That, and control over how your character's resources are placed. This means potentially no gaining HP every level for people who want to trade it for something else, because part of their concept is being frail. Or, perhaps no bonus to attack (mandatory base attack bonus or +½ level) for those people who don't want to be good at attacking.Will we see the flatter math? Maybe. Will we see that much control over your character's resources? Almost certainly not, since it's class-based. But, we'll see. There may be some sort of "fair swap" system. I do highly doubt it, but you never know.My player who had the hit die 14 support character (bonuses via skill checks, aid another, magical aura, etc.) told me to tell Hussar something on this front. Let's just say that he... vehemently disagrees with your assessment (he told me to communicate that as politely as necessary for the boards). To diminish his contribution to the party is something that deeply irritates him, especially when it was so tangible in play.Additionally, if you look at my reply to B.T. in this post, as well as my reply to others in this thread, you can see just how meaningful that contribution is (especially considering the requote to B.T. was with a hit die 1, and his hit die 14 was remarkably more effective).Sigh. I'll go back to the same quote from myself again:Has D&D done this? Not to a satisfying degree, I'll agree. Does that mean it needs to be the case in 5e? No, and that's my point. I'm talking about the future of 5e; I have little interest in bickering about the past editions.If you disagree with me that it might happen in 5e, then sure, that's the first sign of progression in the discussion on my point so far. I stepped in to say "it doesn't need to be that way" and got called by four or five people on it. Well, I stick to "it doesn't need to be that way." If you think "it probably will be that way" then that's a much more on-point reply than the four or five "but it's always been that way!" that I've gotten.Again, I'd much rather talk about the direction of 5e, and how it might achieve those goals, than how past editions have failed and thus the new edition stands no chance. Because, it doesn't need to be that way. As always, play what you like <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