Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ariosto" data-source="post: 5420055" data-attributes="member: 80487">Not in the matter of mathematics that is actually relevant here.In old D&D, I get a better chance to hit as I go up in levels (until that stops accruing). That has no effect whatsoever on anyone else's chance to hit. A monster with a 30% chance to hit has a 30% chance to hit whether it's taking a swipe at high-level me or lowly Frank the Factotum.Really? I'm not seeing that, but I'm no expert on fine points of WotC-D&D.Maybe the designers have some insight, though.The designers of 3e suggest a range of encounter levels mainly (65%) from equal to, to 4 higher than, party level; 5% 5+ higher ("overpowering"); and 30% lower ("easy").The designers of 4e suggest 1/8 each at the extremes of just 1 level lower and 3 levels higher, and 3/4 at level +0 or +1.May I speak for myself, please?Having rules for this sort of thing never in three decades was a problem I ever encountered until WotC-D&D. (I didn't play much 2e AD&D, and I have since heard of, and even from, people who made a problem of "non-weapon proficiencies" and the like.)The rules were there, but not the problem. Not with original D&D or EPT, MA or GW. Not with Top Secret. Not with C&S or Land of the Rising Sun. Not with Traveller or Space Opera. Not with RuneQuest or Stormbringer or Call of Cthulhu or Ringworld. Not with The Fantasy Trip. Not with Villains & Vigilantes or Champions or Superworld. Not with The Mechanoid Invasion or Palladium Fantasy. Not with DragonQuest. Not with Rolemaster. Not with Stalking the Night Fantastic or Chill. Not with Gangbusters or Flashing Blades. Not with Bushido or Aftermath. Not with Twilight: 2000. Not with Lords of Creation or Powers & Perils. Not with Swords & Glory or Gardasiyal. Not with GURPS. Not with Prince Valiant or King Arthur Pendragon.Not with any of the many other rules sets with which I played.What I in fact wrote in that post was that 4e-ers, from what I have seen -- including, yes, the authors of the rulebooks, in the rulebooks -- have made it a series of wargame scenarios one after another. If memory serves, I very explicitly wrote that it's not a matter of "more rules" or "fewer rules" but rather of the method of play.The method of play in 4e is pretty strange relative to what I was accustomed to, in the previous long tradition of "role-playing games".It is immediately recognizable from experience with close-tactical wargames. "Here's the arena, now FIGHT!"That kind of thing can be fun (although 4e is not what I would pick), but it's not what Dungeons & Dragons means or ever meant to me and my friends. It's not just the tail wagging the dog; it's the tail without the dog!</blockquote>

Verification