Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Thomas Shey" data-source="post: 8380204" data-attributes="member: 7026617">I also have to note an issue one has to engage with:At least to one degree or another, a lot of these games want there to be a difference between what a poor set of tactical player, a mediocre set and a good set do in a fight.  This means that most encounters are scaled so at least the medium capability group can work their way through it.The net effect is that, even in games that don't pile up the bricks that higher over time (which was absolutely an issue with D&D 3e and with PF 1e), over time the players will likely learn more about how to use the kind of tricks their characters have, over and above getting more tricks (not necessarily vastly better ones, at least proportionate to the opponents you expect to hit).  This means its entirely probable that players will, indeed, do proportionately better at higher levels simply because they know what they're doing better.(Of course you can run into issues that are not systemic, too; for example with 4e, one of the well known issues was that the first Monster Manual for 4e had some design problems, and it wouldn't surprise me that applied to some of the higher level monsters; if some of these made the monster involved too weak, its going to be seen as an aspect of the character's levels rather than the monster most likely).</blockquote>