Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="doctorbadwolf" data-source="post: 7633257" data-attributes="member: 6704184">But it doesn't become less playable. At all. Most games don't put consistency of advancement across the board on&nbsp; design priority pedestal, which is a very good thing. 5e is as consistent as it should be. What you train in increases, what you don't stays the same. This means you have to choose between further specialization and shoring up weaknesses via training. That is good design. &nbsp;It isn't degradation, it's a diminishing return on hyper specialization and an increased need to work together, which is good design. No, it won't, necessarily, though now some of your comparisons of 4e and 5e, and your view of 5e as inherently unbalanced to the point where balance &quot;isn't even a concern&quot; make a lot more sense, now. There are specific areas where consistency matters in and of itself, like in how success is determined. The modern game works better than the OG game, because you always roll a d20 and add or don't add whatever mods apply, and compare it to a positive number, where in the past you had different dice for different actions, and sometimes high was good and sometimes high was bad. Consistency in the core resolution method is good. Different parts of the game progressing differently isn't inherently good or bad. It depends on what it promotes and how it impacts complexity, and the balance between those factors. Untrained checks and saves not progressing promotes differentiation between characters, makes your stat always matter, isn't noticeably more complex (arguably less complex) than everything increasing but at a different rate if trained, and helps keep the numbers from inflating out of whack. And it feels more right, for more players.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="doctorbadwolf, post: 7633257, member: 6704184"] But it doesn't become less playable. At all. Most games don't put consistency of advancement across the board on design priority pedestal, which is a very good thing. 5e is as consistent as it should be. What you train in increases, what you don't stays the same. This means you have to choose between further specialization and shoring up weaknesses via training. That is good design. It isn't degradation, it's a diminishing return on hyper specialization and an increased need to work together, which is good design. No, it won't, necessarily, though now some of your comparisons of 4e and 5e, and your view of 5e as inherently unbalanced to the point where balance "isn't even a concern" make a lot more sense, now. There are specific areas where consistency matters in and of itself, like in how success is determined. The modern game works better than the OG game, because you always roll a d20 and add or don't add whatever mods apply, and compare it to a positive number, where in the past you had different dice for different actions, and sometimes high was good and sometimes high was bad. Consistency in the core resolution method is good. Different parts of the game progressing differently isn't inherently good or bad. It depends on what it promotes and how it impacts complexity, and the balance between those factors. Untrained checks and saves not progressing promotes differentiation between characters, makes your stat always matter, isn't noticeably more complex (arguably less complex) than everything increasing but at a different rate if trained, and helps keep the numbers from inflating out of whack. And it feels more right, for more players. [/QUOTE]

Verification