Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon 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 Next
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
*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!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
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
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Why do all classes have to be balanced?
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="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 5909404" data-attributes="member: 6668292"><p><em>But they aren't as strong.</em> I went into this with my reply to Hussar about depth. A combat-aid focused hit die 1 PC can give a +9 swing in combat to a hit die 15 combat-focused PC who only gets +15 passively, giving him a sizable bonus to his attack roll.</p><p></p><p>The hit die 14 PC, however, was giving higher bonuses, more often, and to more people. He wouldn't affect one person, plus one person reactively; no, he'd give out four bonuses, plus two reactively (or three times as many bonuses). He also had a passive magical aura to give to allies, rather than having to spend time buffing mid-combat. His total bonuses were also higher than the hit die 1. His skills were more capable (he could lead men well, had his own ship with a crew, and was a very good negotiator, which is something the hit die 1 would be respectable at, but not amazing at yet).</p><p></p><p>Hit die denotes <em>depth</em> of ability. To say that a hit die 1's buff is as strong as a hit die 15's buff is to misunderstand my system (or even the point of hit die in my system) on a rather fundamental level.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Well, that could very well be true. It'll be interesting, since they just released an article about Wizards, and mentioned making sure he doesn't overpower the party and steal too much spotlight or step on too many toes. And, with the mention of the Fighter surpassing our version of "mundane" and hitting something closer to "mythic mundane" or the like, it'll be interesting to see what action resolution mechanics they'll employ. It seems like they won't heavily employ metagame action resolution mechanics, and instead rely on "it makes sense, it's mythic" at high levels.</p><p></p><p>For lower levels, though? No idea. And poisoning guards should definitely be viable at lower levels, I'd imagine. They could definitely make an extended skill resolution system. I like them. I have nothing against skill challenges, as long as they "make sense" to me. That is, you dump what Justin Alexander says about them, dump "these skills work, these skills don't, these skills have this result", and just resolve checks like skills, I think they're fine. I even like the X successes before 3 failures rule.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I doubt it's an explicit design goal. I think the flatter math will make this an issue, though, whether they intend it to or not.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Right, but if you're correct, then the orc has a decent chance of hitting that level 15's AC (since it didn't scale as high). This means that a bunch of orcs, rolling individual attacks against the AC of the level 15, will likely land a decent number of hits. Even with HP continuing to go up significantly, the level 15 will eventually be dropped by enough mundane, regular orc warriors.</p><p></p><p>This is what I mean by the flatter math contributing to this type of thing. This is what Hussar seems to have explicitly said he doesn't want. In 3.X (and I believe 4e), if your AC is 25, and the orc only gets +5 to attack, he can only hit you on a natural 20. You feel pretty safe wading into them and cleaving through groups while they occasionally knock a few hit points off. On the other hand, if they all get +3, and your AC at level 15 is only AC 20, you're getting hit enough that you might worry about wading in.</p><p></p><p>The flatter math (attack bonus and AC) but not flatter HP means that mundane orcs, in a group, are still dangerous. Many people like this. Just as many (if not more) dislike this. I'm the former, and I think Hussar is the latter. But flatter math will make a difference in such a way that a level 1 might just be able to contribute. If the DC to do something is DC 16 at level 1 or level 15, and I get +6 at level 1 and +9 at level 15, I can contribute pretty well on that check.</p><p></p><p>Yes, the flatter math is affecting action resolution (including attack bonuses, AC, DCs, etc.), and that will certainly affect how the game is played. And, even if it's not an explicit design goal, it might allow a level 1 to contribute to a level 15. What is that worth? I don't know. It's not like most groups run that style of game anyways. But, it's something to keep in mind for how 5e mind turn out, even if it's not a design goal (since people like me will like it, and I think people like Hussar will dislike it). As always, play what you like <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="JamesonCourage, post: 5909404, member: 6668292"] [I]But they aren't as strong.[/I] I went into this with my reply to Hussar about depth. A combat-aid focused hit die 1 PC can give a +9 swing in combat to a hit die 15 combat-focused PC who only gets +15 passively, giving him a sizable bonus to his attack roll. The hit die 14 PC, however, was giving higher bonuses, more often, and to more people. He wouldn't affect one person, plus one person reactively; no, he'd give out four bonuses, plus two reactively (or three times as many bonuses). He also had a passive magical aura to give to allies, rather than having to spend time buffing mid-combat. His total bonuses were also higher than the hit die 1. His skills were more capable (he could lead men well, had his own ship with a crew, and was a very good negotiator, which is something the hit die 1 would be respectable at, but not amazing at yet). Hit die denotes [I]depth[/I] of ability. To say that a hit die 1's buff is as strong as a hit die 15's buff is to misunderstand my system (or even the point of hit die in my system) on a rather fundamental level. Well, that could very well be true. It'll be interesting, since they just released an article about Wizards, and mentioned making sure he doesn't overpower the party and steal too much spotlight or step on too many toes. And, with the mention of the Fighter surpassing our version of "mundane" and hitting something closer to "mythic mundane" or the like, it'll be interesting to see what action resolution mechanics they'll employ. It seems like they won't heavily employ metagame action resolution mechanics, and instead rely on "it makes sense, it's mythic" at high levels. For lower levels, though? No idea. And poisoning guards should definitely be viable at lower levels, I'd imagine. They could definitely make an extended skill resolution system. I like them. I have nothing against skill challenges, as long as they "make sense" to me. That is, you dump what Justin Alexander says about them, dump "these skills work, these skills don't, these skills have this result", and just resolve checks like skills, I think they're fine. I even like the X successes before 3 failures rule. I doubt it's an explicit design goal. I think the flatter math will make this an issue, though, whether they intend it to or not. Right, but if you're correct, then the orc has a decent chance of hitting that level 15's AC (since it didn't scale as high). This means that a bunch of orcs, rolling individual attacks against the AC of the level 15, will likely land a decent number of hits. Even with HP continuing to go up significantly, the level 15 will eventually be dropped by enough mundane, regular orc warriors. This is what I mean by the flatter math contributing to this type of thing. This is what Hussar seems to have explicitly said he doesn't want. In 3.X (and I believe 4e), if your AC is 25, and the orc only gets +5 to attack, he can only hit you on a natural 20. You feel pretty safe wading into them and cleaving through groups while they occasionally knock a few hit points off. On the other hand, if they all get +3, and your AC at level 15 is only AC 20, you're getting hit enough that you might worry about wading in. The flatter math (attack bonus and AC) but not flatter HP means that mundane orcs, in a group, are still dangerous. Many people like this. Just as many (if not more) dislike this. I'm the former, and I think Hussar is the latter. But flatter math will make a difference in such a way that a level 1 might just be able to contribute. If the DC to do something is DC 16 at level 1 or level 15, and I get +6 at level 1 and +9 at level 15, I can contribute pretty well on that check. Yes, the flatter math is affecting action resolution (including attack bonuses, AC, DCs, etc.), and that will certainly affect how the game is played. And, even if it's not an explicit design goal, it might allow a level 1 to contribute to a level 15. What is that worth? I don't know. It's not like most groups run that style of game anyways. But, it's something to keep in mind for how 5e mind turn out, even if it's not a design goal (since people like me will like it, and I think people like Hussar will dislike it). As always, play what you like :) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Why do all classes have to be balanced?
Top