Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Iosue" data-source="post: 5997595" data-attributes="member: 6680772">Indeed, this was a case where 4e...*shudder*...went back to editions-past in design.Playing both BECMI and 4e, I see where sometimes the old ways have their advantages.&nbsp; Not that they are necessarily better -- they just have different advantages.&nbsp; For example, D&amp;D and AD&amp;D had hit charts.&nbsp; These worked okay, but some folks said, &quot;Tables?&nbsp; What a pain in the ass!&quot; and came up with THAC0.&nbsp; All right!&nbsp; Now, no need for tables - just one number on your sheet, a roll, and some math.&nbsp; But then some folks said, &quot;Subtraction?&nbsp; What a pain in the ass!&quot; and they reversed AC and came up with BAB.&nbsp; Awesome!&nbsp; Now you just have a number, a roll, and then add the two.&nbsp; Simple!&nbsp; But now we have escalating bonuses, and the numbers start getting out of hand.&nbsp; Adding, say, 14 (your attack bonus) and 17, while not especially difficult, suddenly doesn't seem that much easier than the subtraction of THAC0.&nbsp; Heck, a 26th level Knight is going to have around a +30 attack bonus even without any situational modifiers, making the d20 almost an afterthought.&nbsp; And in my experience, high or low, the DM often needs the player to do the math before they know the result of the role.&nbsp; So now in 5e we have bounded accuracy to avoid that kind of number inflation.And then, I look at BECMI, and it seems so simple and easy.&nbsp; Here's a chart.&nbsp; It's going to have a number between 2 and 20 on it.&nbsp; Player rolls, DM checks the chart, and that's it.&nbsp; Virtually all the math, save for the odd small bonus here or there, has already been done by the designers.Again, not saying it's inherently better, or that 5e should go back to tables.&nbsp; Just saying the old stuff has its advantages, too.&nbsp; Sometimes you can go back, and sometimes its a good idea.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Iosue, post: 5997595, member: 6680772"] Indeed, this was a case where 4e...*shudder*...went back to editions-past in design. Playing both BECMI and 4e, I see where sometimes the old ways have their advantages. Not that they are necessarily better -- they just have different advantages. For example, D&D and AD&D had hit charts. These worked okay, but some folks said, "Tables? What a pain in the ass!" and came up with THAC0. All right! Now, no need for tables - just one number on your sheet, a roll, and some math. But then some folks said, "Subtraction? What a pain in the ass!" and they reversed AC and came up with BAB. Awesome! Now you just have a number, a roll, and then add the two. Simple! But now we have escalating bonuses, and the numbers start getting out of hand. Adding, say, 14 (your attack bonus) and 17, while not especially difficult, suddenly doesn't seem that much easier than the subtraction of THAC0. Heck, a 26th level Knight is going to have around a +30 attack bonus even without any situational modifiers, making the d20 almost an afterthought. And in my experience, high or low, the DM often needs the player to do the math before they know the result of the role. So now in 5e we have bounded accuracy to avoid that kind of number inflation. And then, I look at BECMI, and it seems so simple and easy. Here's a chart. It's going to have a number between 2 and 20 on it. Player rolls, DM checks the chart, and that's it. Virtually all the math, save for the odd small bonus here or there, has already been done by the designers. Again, not saying it's inherently better, or that 5e should go back to tables. Just saying the old stuff has its advantages, too. Sometimes you can go back, and sometimes its a good idea. [/QUOTE]

Verification