| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4429 Posts |
 Posted - 12 Mar 2015 : 06:27:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
1. Because bonuses ranging from +1 to +20 exacerbates the numbers to a ridiculous degree, causing multipliers and stats to rise astronomically compared to the averages of others in the system. Basically it leads to numbers porn where the AC of a monster of X level needs to be Y because......game.
Yes, the numbers in 3e can get bigger than they do in 5e. So? Problems can arise when they're not balanced properly, but the numbers themselves are not a problem. Barring a phobia of big numbers (I'm not making fun of anyone, just making a point) I think disapproval of 3e's numbers should actually be aimed at balance, not at the magnitude of the numbers.
I find that it's a problem overall when the numbers fail to represent what's actually being described within the theme of the game and setting. Lets consider that the majority of D&D settings, PCs and NPCs with PC-class levels are something of a minority. With that assumption it begs to question how monsters exceeding the CR 12 range aren't totally destroying all but the strongest cities based solely on their numbers.
Then we get down to the actual values. My 13th level Fighter (with plate armor, magical items, and features) can literally sit on the ground while being surrounded by 9 Kobolds who are attacking him repeatedly and only suffer being struck 5% of the time due to critical hits (even less with specific enhancements). I'm sorry but I find that completely ridiculous and stupid. At least in 5E a 13th level Fighter can still be hit, and more often, but relies more on their deeper pool of HP than other monsters and the like.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
How is it unrealistic for a level 20 fighter to "automatically hit" a target that a level 1 fighter has to put some effort into?
Because to-hit isn't the end all / be all of prowess in D&D or even in real life. Tell me, why is it impossible for a 1st level 3.5 Fighter to hit and damage an Adult Dragon even though he Slams his weapon into the monster's leg but a 20th level Fighter with the same equipment and a marginal increase in Strength Does? How does that, at all, translate well to keeping immersion?
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
3e might not be perfect
Well at least here we can agree, and eagerly I might add.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
but 5e's tiny progression is unrealistic. They may have scaled ACs down to fit it, but it still doesn't make sense.
It really depends on how you perceive realism. I find a Fighter sitting down for dinner while Kobolds wail on you and not worry a bit wholly moronic, yet it's easily achievable due to 3E's math. I find that a Monster who's AC is in the 30's and attack values in the mid-30's and 40's and hasn't destroyed a few hundred miles of civilization completely unrealistic. I find that when Gods and demi-gods are statted, it's unrealistic. I find the idea that a player can literally pump out +1,000's of damage per turn moronic. 3E is filled with things that literally make no sense, who's only reason for existence is....game.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
From a different angle, a smaller range of numbers makes each point more "powerful." In 3e, if a high-level character gets another +1 bonus from something, it's no big deal right? In 5e, it's a big deal. So a +1 upgrade to an item or stat is great from the 5e beneficiary's perspective, but it has more potential for unbalancing the group than it does in 3e.
That's the point about magical weapons and has been a stated goal since the beginning of the entire playtest process. The point of magical items is to make you better, flat out. No more "added progression due to X, Y, or Z." No more assumption of auto-matic stat bonuses by 14th level or the requirement to have a +X weapon by Z level or you will eventually die due to systemic math equations.
Not only that but smaller numbers are just frankly easier to deal with overall. For me it's easier to calculate 3 attacks at the same modifier lesser than 20 with 3 rolls compared to 3e's multiple attacks, at different modifiers with numbers exceeding 20.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
As for level capping, I wouldn't be surprised at all if they came out with a Epic levels handbook further down the road to supplement the epic style campaigns.
Maybe. With 5e's emphasis on simplifying, I wouldn't be surprised if they don't ever create over-20 rules.
It's not a big deal for me either way, really. I don't anticipate having a need for a new epic level handbook. If a campaign stretches past level 20 I'll make my own rules if there isn't a book for it.
Eh, I'm in the same boat as my games rarely achieve the 20+ mark. That being said because the system is so lite and simple, it wouldn't be hard to tack on rules that exceed what's already present. Same way Epic rules were created with 3E, a tacked on supplement that halfheartedly tries to mimic the genre. Throw in some epic level feats and class progressions or a simple Sub-Class system that is already in place or take straight from the Epic Destiny of 4E would be a cinch.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
The key for me is how enjoyable playing is, at every level. If playing at level 1 is just as enjoyable as playing at level 20, then players have no resistance to ending a campaign and rolling up new characters for another. It's only when low levels stink that we want to keep going into higher levels, and that's been a problem (for me at least) in previous editions.
I guess the question is at that point is leveling even something that matters? When you've reached 20th level, why does the game need to suddenly stop? Why not continue to adventure and do daring things? Is it because you're no longer getting even more powerful and strong mechanically? Superman, by comparison, still has adventures and I'd say he hasn't "leveled" in a LONG time. Maybe campaign specific events fuels the characters motives and continue to let them grow instead of just adding a few more bonuses, feats, and magical items. |
Edited by - Diffan on 12 Mar 2015 06:27:28 |
 |
|
|
xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore
USA
1853 Posts |
Posted - 12 Mar 2015 : 16:04:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Lets consider that the majority of D&D settings, PCs and NPCs with PC-class levels are something of a minority. With that assumption it begs to question how monsters exceeding the CR 12 range aren't totally destroying all but the strongest cities based solely on their numbers.
A minority, yes, but not absent. Population centers (pretty much any community with walls) inevitably has someone with a few class levels living within. Sure, Klauth could lay waste to much of the Sword Coast north if/when he chose to, but doing so would (1) require an investment of effort with almost zero return, and (2) spread the fact of his existence to an extent roughly proportional to the size of the devastation, due to those pesky survivors who always manage to escape. So... huge investment, basically zero return, and an unknowable long-term threat of reprisals. Klauth may not have worried much about reprisals a few centuries ago when he was feeling stronger, but that's just an example. Substitute any powerful and marginally wise antagonist into this picture and many of them will realize that there is usually a bigger fish in the pond and perhaps making your own presence known is not the best move. So things generally keep to themselves; they feed when they need to, hide the rest of the time, and plan contingencies for everything they can think of. It wouldn't make any sense for Klauth to openly try to burn or rule the north... but I'll admit that the argument would be stronger using something other than a narcissistic dragon as an example. The point is yes they could destroy some cities --and this has happened during Dracorages and various other dragonflights-- but there's little/no gain to be had from it so... why?
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Then we get down to the actual values. My 13th level Fighter (with plate armor, magical items, and features) can literally sit on the ground while being surrounded by 9 Kobolds who are attacking him repeatedly and only suffer being struck 5% of the time due to critical hits (even less with specific enhancements).
I'm not trying to insult you; I know you understand D&D... but this is misinterpreting the "to hit" roll. AC does double-duty in D&D as (1) how hard is it to hit something and (2) which incoming attacks are rendered harmless by the target's armor. 3e gives us "touch AC" and "flatfooted AC" and this distinction is brilliant. Your fighter is hit every time an attacker bests his Touch AC... at least 50% of the time given that your fighter shouldn't get any Dex bonus while sitting on the ground in plate armor ignoring his attackers. I would argue that the kobolds should get a significant bonus to hit him in this situation because their target is basically the broad side of a barn. However, the fighter only takes damage when they best his full AC... basically never, because they're (presumably 1 HD) kobolds and this dude is covered in metal plates supported by leather and chainmail padding. It's absolutely realistic and appropriate that he should almost never take damage in this scenario.
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
I find that when Gods and demi-gods are statted, it's unrealistic.
Absolutely agree with this. This is perhaps the only thing I would put Gary Gygax "on blast" for. Assigning stats to deities was an utterly stupid decision. Unfortunately it's one that subsequent editions have supported. It needs to stop.
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
That's the point about magical weapons and has been a stated goal since the beginning of the entire playtest process. The point of magical items is to make you better, flat out.
This is a fair point. Magical items should be a big deal. I'm just not comfortable with eliminating circumstance bonuses, skill synergies, and perhaps other nonmagical bonuses which would become similarly huge when introduced to the barren field of 5e stats.
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
For me it's easier to calculate 3 attacks at the same modifier lesser than 20 with 3 rolls compared to 3e's multiple attacks, at different modifiers
Also fair. 3e does have a tendency to introduce a lot of variation, and playing with fewer+smaller numbers is quicker and has less room for errors. I don't mind the added complexity of 3e, and I appreciate its greater willingness to reward PCs (and monsters) but it's a "personal taste" thing.
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
When you've reached 20th level, why does the game need to suddenly stop?
It's not that the game stops. It's that it doesn't make sense for progression to stop. WoW for example... when I look at my played time on a max-level character, it says something like "84 days total, 72 days at current level." I haven't played in a while; I don't remember the exact wording, but that's the idea. It took me a little bit to reach level cap --to advance my character to the point where it's not possible to advance anymore-- and then... it's just coasting. Yes, gear can improve, and talents can be optimized, but the character (stripped naked) doesn't improve beyond that point. Until the level cap is bumped and ultimately that's just another step on the ziggurat of character advancement in WoW.
Level caps are unavoidable in video games. Infinite advancement would require monsters that scale up infinitely with player level. Particularly in WoW's case because each expansion is rebalanced, this is completely impractical.
But D&D isn't a video game. DMs have room to exercise much greater flexibility and creativity than designers have within the framework of a video game. Plus, when the DM is tired of making bigger/grander encounters the option is there to simply end the campaign and start a new one. Video games can't do that; they have to let everyone play as much as they want to, and players generally want to keep leveling up.
I'm rambling. I'm saying that there should not be a point, in D&D, where a PC (stripped naked) cannot advance any further because there's no more game left to grow into. Raiding forever at max level does not provide the same gratification as meeting another XP milepost. Improving your character should never be limited to optimizing your feats and hoping for better gear.
If it is, then tabletop roleplaying is doomed. Video games are far more compelling for many players, particularly the youngest generation. We will never be able to give them the brain food they need, when we're stunting character advancement. They'll play video games instead, which lack the depth (brain food) of tabletop rpgs but feature compelling graphics -- goodbye annoying character sheets, hello avatars that jiggle in all the right places and lightning bolts that visibly fry your opponents and sprays of blood everywhere!
|
Edited by - xaeyruudh on 12 Mar 2015 16:05:42 |
|
|
|
ZeshinX
Learned Scribe
Canada
210 Posts |
Posted - 12 Mar 2015 : 16:31:34
|
As far as numbers go, it's more of a simulation vs. abstraction thing I find. While I love me some simulation (the sort of "realistic" feel I guess you could call it), I also like me some abstraction (achieve the fantastical without having to accomplish something akin to a mathematical proof).
While I find the bounded accuracy of 5e a bit confining, it does keep the focus away from numbers/builds and more on the character's character. So it's kind of a split between "Who they are" vs "What they are".
At least that's my take on it. I love the details 3e/PF can offer initially, but I find the numbers get to a point where they overtake the character and you can determine success/failure purely by looking at the numbers (it doesn't have to go that way, but the numbers can be overwhelmingly hard to ignore at times).
I loved that 3e/PF try to base rules on plausibility and explanation vs "because....game", but eventually they give way to "because....game" once the numbers reach a certain point.
5e certainly returned to a more "because....game" styled approach to rules, but I'm finding it's a pretty happy middle ground. I still have my grumbles about some things, but overall it's working for me. I just wish WotC would stop focusing near solely on storyline products and release some bloody sourcebooks (something like Pathfinder's Advanced Player's Guide and such). The current approach feels like the game died after the DMG was released...to me at least. I have no interest in their storyline nonsense. |
"...because despite the best advice of those who know what they are talking about, other people insist on doing the most massively stupid things."
-Galen, technomage |
Edited by - ZeshinX on 12 Mar 2015 16:34:46 |
|
|
|
Dewaint
Learned Scribe
Germany
148 Posts |
Posted - 17 Mar 2015 : 15:01:55
|
Guess if someone is playing on a frequent basis .. let's say once or twice a week, will possibly get bored by the well defined rules sooner or later and more fond of 3.x/PF 'cause of the vast amount of options and maths-supported character customization.
Groups playing occasionally - for whatever reasons not able to play more often nor able to let the game go ;) Let's say once every 6 weeks, pausing during holiday season, might experience hard times to remember the exact rules or location of such rules. Endanger game fun by delving into endless discussions, DMs house ruling this time that way, essentially trying to move forward the game; and maybe next time the other way 'cause he's desperately digging in his notes and pressed to make decisions.
I admit it's a constructed situation, but maybe one or the other knows about such gut feelings.
Depending on the sort of game you prefer I believe both variants might coexist extremely well, players able to choose the one or other style.
For me 5e feels more like an evolution of good old AD&D/2e, which benefits from elaborated enhancements and player feedback of 3rd and 4th editions.
To me it's an appealing approach and am looking forward to future publications, hopefully with tons of updated Forgotten Realms Lore  |
|
|
|
xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore
USA
1853 Posts |
Posted - 17 Mar 2015 : 15:26:03
|
| I hadn't considered the frequency issue... excellent point. Since I'm thinking about the Realms for a good chunk of every day, I need maximum customization when building characters or encounters. For those who aren't as weird as I am, that might be unnecessary-at-best. |
|
|
|
Matt James
Forgotten Realms Game Designer
USA
918 Posts |
Posted - 17 Mar 2015 : 16:42:28
|
I think I may have already posted in this thread, but I wanted to reiterate how happy I am with 5e. Then again, as I always caveat, I am a D&D fanboy overall :D
I've had a lot of luck re-imagining old FR content. |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4429 Posts |
Posted - 18 Apr 2015 : 14:20:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Lets consider that the majority of D&D settings, PCs and NPCs with PC-class levels are something of a minority. With that assumption it begs to question how monsters exceeding the CR 12 range aren't totally destroying all but the strongest cities based solely on their numbers.
A minority, yes, but not absent. Population centers (pretty much any community with walls) inevitably has someone with a few class levels living within. Sure, Klauth could lay waste to much of the Sword Coast north if/when he chose to, but doing so would (1) require an investment of effort with almost zero return, and (2) spread the fact of his existence to an extent roughly proportional to the size of the devastation, due to those pesky survivors who always manage to escape. So... huge investment, basically zero return, and an unknowable long-term threat of reprisals. Klauth may not have worried much about reprisals a few centuries ago when he was feeling stronger, but that's just an example. Substitute any powerful and marginally wise antagonist into this picture and many of them will realize that there is usually a bigger fish in the pond and perhaps making your own presence known is not the best move. So things generally keep to themselves; they feed when they need to, hide the rest of the time, and plan contingencies for everything they can think of. It wouldn't make any sense for Klauth to openly try to burn or rule the north... but I'll admit that the argument would be stronger using something other than a narcissistic dragon as an example. The point is yes they could destroy some cities --and this has happened during Dracorages and various other dragonflights-- but there's little/no gain to be had from it so... why?
You can substitute Klauth for any mid- to high-leveled monster in the book. And I'm not talking about the "Major" cities like Waterdeep, Baldur's Gate, and Silverymoon. I'm talking about the much LARGER number of smaller communities and towns and hamlets in between. And the motivations of some monsters is just to be pure evil or even mindless. The point is the numbers of the system don't relate well to the majority of occupants in the setting.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Then we get down to the actual values. My 13th level Fighter (with plate armor, magical items, and features) can literally sit on the ground while being surrounded by 9 Kobolds who are attacking him repeatedly and only suffer being struck 5% of the time due to critical hits (even less with specific enhancements).
I'm not trying to insult you; I know you understand D&D... but this is misinterpreting the "to hit" roll. AC does double-duty in D&D as (1) how hard is it to hit something and (2) which incoming attacks are rendered harmless by the target's armor. 3e gives us "touch AC" and "flatfooted AC" and this distinction is brilliant. Your fighter is hit every time an attacker bests his Touch AC... at least 50% of the time given that your fighter shouldn't get any Dex bonus while sitting on the ground in plate armor ignoring his attackers. I would argue that the kobolds should get a significant bonus to hit him in this situation because their target is basically the broad side of a barn. However, the fighter only takes damage when they best his full AC... basically never, because they're (presumably 1 HD) kobolds and this dude is covered in metal plates supported by leather and chainmail padding. It's absolutely realistic and appropriate that he should almost never take damage in this scenario.
Ok, lets take 9 people (i used Kobolds as low-level example but CR 1 human commoners will do just as well) and give them clubs, spears, and daggers. Then put on full-plate and sit down with them hitting you. I'd bet you would be rendered unconscious in under a minute (10 turns of D&D time). I think it's totally unbelievable that someone can undergo significan trauma, even in full armor, and walk away without nearly a scratch.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
I find that when Gods and demi-gods are statted, it's unrealistic.
Absolutely agree with this. This is perhaps the only thing I would put Gary Gygax "on blast" for. Assigning stats to deities was an utterly stupid decision. Unfortunately it's one that subsequent editions have supported. It needs to stop.
Agreed!
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
That's the point about magical weapons and has been a stated goal since the beginning of the entire playtest process. The point of magical items is to make you better, flat out.
This is a fair point. Magical items should be a big deal. I'm just not comfortable with eliminating circumstance bonuses, skill synergies, and perhaps other nonmagical bonuses which would become similarly huge when introduced to the barren field of 5e stats.
This is what Advantage is for. As for synergies, they're not really needed when you look at the skill list. Most non-combat options are ability checks, and if you have a skill that applies, cool add proficiency bonus.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
For me it's easier to calculate 3 attacks at the same modifier less than 20 with 3 rolls compared to 3e's multiple attacks, at different modifiers
Also fair. 3e does have a tendency to introduce a lot of variation, and playing with fewer+smaller numbers is quicker and has less room for errors. I don't mind the added complexity of 3e, and I appreciate its greater willingness to reward PCs (and monsters) but it's a "personal taste" thing.
Fair enough.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
When you've reached 20th level, why does the game need to suddenly stop?
It's not that the game stops. It's that it doesn't make sense for progression to stop. WoW for example... when I look at my played time on a max-level character, it says something like "84 days total, 72 days at current level." I haven't played in a while; I don't remember the exact wording, but that's the idea. It took me a little bit to reach level cap --to advance my character to the point where it's not possible to advance anymore-- and then... it's just coasting. Yes, gear can improve, and talents can be optimized, but the character (stripped naked) doesn't improve beyond that point. Until the level cap is bumped and ultimately that's just another step on the ziggurat of character advancement in WoW.
I find that very....unfortunate. See for me, the character isn't just a collection of stats. They have purpose, ideals, goals, desires, dreams, pursuits, etc. A 20th level Cleric of Lathander (or Amaunator) is still striving to rid the world of Undead. He's still striving to bring the shining light of the Morninglord to the darkest places in the world. To build churches that venerate the sun god. Just because he hit 20th level, these things don't just stop. There are still powerful undead and liches and dracoliches to vanquish. There's still a Gods work to be done. It's more than just a mechanical strive, it's a characters strive.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
Level caps are unavoidable in video games. Infinite advancement would require monsters that scale up infinitely with player level. Particularly in WoW's case because each expansion is rebalanced, this is completely impractical.
But D&D isn't a video game. DMs have room to exercise much greater flexibility and creativity than designers have within the framework of a video game. Plus, when the DM is tired of making bigger/grander encounters the option is there to simply end the campaign and start a new one. Video games can't do that; they have to let everyone play as much as they want to, and players generally want to keep leveling up.
The idea that leveling up as the strongest or sole reason to play a RPG (in this case, TT versions) is a pretty boring one. I like to level my characters, sure. I like the idea of advancement. But it's getting there and being a part of the story as it unfolds that's FAR more important to hitting that next level for spells, feats, and stats. But maybe I'm not comprehending the message you're trying to get across? When it comes to leveling up, it becomes a treadmill of "I'm better so the monsters need to be better..." and that's really a problem I have with D&D (well, E6 is better and 5E is doing well).
Basically even a high level PC should have a healthy fear of monsters, yes even kobolds. If the game cannot foster that with the wide range of monsters in the Monster Manual, then I feel it's failed at some point at keeping things sensible. This is why I've gone to playing 3rd Edition with Epic 6 rules. The idea that my Fighter, who has magical plate mail, a magical sword, and comrades that are nearly unparalleled to those of the same race will still second guess dispatching a roving band of Trolls. In regular 3E and in 4E, by a certain level none of that is even relevant. To me, that's a shame.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
I'm saying that there should not be a point, in D&D, where a PC (stripped naked) cannot advance any further because there's no more game left to grow into. Raiding forever at max level does not provide the same gratification as meeting another XP milepost. Improving your character should never be limited to optimizing your feats and hoping for better gear.
And I'd say advancement doesn't necessarily HAVE to be a mechanical one. This is an area that D&D really needs to push because just more crunch doesn't cut it, and I say that as a guy who LOVES crunch. Again I think it comes down to that "video game" play. It's a TTRPG and the characters therein are far more than just a collection of mechanics and stats, or at least they should be.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
If it is, then tabletop roleplaying is doomed. Video games are far more compelling for many players, particularly the youngest generation. We will never be able to give them the brain food they need, when we're stunting character advancement. They'll play video games instead, which lack the depth (brain food) of tabletop rpgs but feature compelling graphics -- goodbye annoying character sheets, hello avatars that jiggle in all the right places and lightning bolts that visibly fry your opponents and sprays of blood everywhere!
I fail to see why they can't enjoy both? Not only are video games limited (unless your playing in a room with friends) to solo-mode, which is boring as hell, but it also gets terribly repetitive. There's a reason why I quit WoW and it was mostly because 1) the players were immature turds that cared more about the "lootz" I was carrying or using than actually playing the game and 2) it was farm, farm, farm, farm, farm, oh....and more farm. Hey cool, I made armor that I surpassed 4 levels ago and it's nearly worthless. YAY! I'll take TTRPGs and the interaction of real people who I can talk to and converse with in person every single time. |
|
|
|
xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore
USA
1853 Posts |
Posted - 20 Apr 2015 : 03:35:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
I'm talking about the much LARGER number of smaller communities and towns and hamlets in between.
If you're seeing places where every Amphail and Hultail has high level NPCs, then I agree that that's a bad thing.
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Ok, lets take 9 people (i used Kobolds as low-level example but CR 1 human commoners will do just as well)
I would reply the same way with CR 1 commoners versus kobolds, but I get what you're saying further down.
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
This is what Advantage is for. As for synergies, they're not really needed when you look at the skill list.
Hrm. Advantage increases the RNG aspect, and I have mixed feelings about that. I like some randomness, but ya know... the line between enough and too much is a tricky thing. I suspect I'll learn to love it because I like other aspects of 5e. 
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
See for me, the character isn't just a collection of stats. They have purpose, ideals, goals, desires, dreams, pursuits, etc.
I agree that there's more to PCs than just the mechanics. There's also more than just their motives. It's not the case (for me anyway) that "the PCs are getting more powerful; therefore I have to find tougher things to throw at them." I mean yes, that's one way of looking at it, but it can be the other way around. The PCs are getting more powerful, so they're capable of tackling bigger things. There are always bigger things that need tackling, in a tabletop campaign, and that's part of what makes them this rewarding than MMO RPGs... there doesn't need to be a point where there's nothing left to do because we can already do everything there is to do in the game.
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Basically even a high level PC should have a healthy fear of monsters, yes even kobolds.
Now I get what you were saying earlier. I disagree about the kobolds part (except when kobolds gain levels in PC classes) but I agree that there should be things the PCs fear at every level.
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
And I'd say advancement doesn't necessarily HAVE to be a mechanical one.
I'm just saying it breaks suspension-of-disbelief (for me) when there's a point where the mechanical advancement stops. I agree that character development in non-mechanical ways can and should continue indefinitely.
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
I fail to see why they can't enjoy both?
Adult(ish) gamers can enjoy both. Not so sure about the average 10 year old boy -- and he's relevant because he's WotC's target demographic.
I agree that WoW is insanely repetitive and boring, and that it gets worse at max level. But I think that's due partly to lazy design... it's possible to have as much variety in video games as there is in TT gaming, and randomizing stuff is faster, so in theory everything has more replay value in video games than it does in tabletop gaming. But that's just in theory.
Anyway. I know level limits are probably unavoidable. I'd just prefer that they be kept fuzzy and theoretical, rather than saying "you no longer accumulate XP once you reach level 20." Because that means D&D shares a weakness of WoW. And it only offers 1/5 of the levels. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Thoughts on 5e?
