|
6 months ago ::
Dec 06, 2012 - 10:27AM
#121
|
Date Joined:
May 27, 2012
|
... he is better at dodging parrying and evading blows.
... Dexterity modifies it too meaning agility and skill should play a role in determining AC.
You mean he has more HP, and has increased his dex through level advancement to get a higher AC? Because both of those happen right now with no scaling.
In 4E, skill at dodging/parrying/evading was one of the major things covered by 1/2 level bonus to AC. In 3E, skill at dodging/parrying/evading was covered by BAB-converted-to-AC-through Combat Expertise.
The metagame is not the game.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 06, 2012 - 10:37AM
#122
|
|
|
... he is better at dodging parrying and evading blows.
... Dexterity modifies it too meaning agility and skill should play a role in determining AC.
You mean he has more HP, and has increased his dex through level advancement to get a higher AC? Because both of those happen right now with no scaling.
In 4E, skill at dodging/parrying/evading was one of the major things covered by 1/2 level bonus to AC. In 3E, skill at dodging/parrying/evading was covered by BAB-converted-to-AC-through Combat Expertise.
And now it's covered by actual dodging/parrying/evading skills.
Just because those skills have not been relized in a useful way YET. Does not mean they don't/won't exist.
And as opposed to those earlier representations that wound up being meaningless because of treadmill, these new skills will be actually relevant and useful (if designed better than they are now).
That is actual improvement, not symbolic improvement, which is the entire point of BA.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 06, 2012 - 10:46AM
#123
|
Date Joined:
May 27, 2012
|
And now it's covered by actual dodging/parrying/evading skills.
Just because those skills have not been relized in a useful way YET. Does not mean they don't/won't exist.
Which would be great! I have nothing against changing mechanics, especially if the new ones work well. I'm just afraid they'll make it so that only fighters can parry, or only rogues know how to dodge.
If my cleric/wizard survives a hundred fights worth of running away from goblins and orcs and ogres and dragons, then the game mechanics need to cover her combat experience as well.
And as opposed to those earlier representations that wound up being meaningless because of treadmill, these new skills will be actually relevant and useful (if designed better than they are now).
Except the old bonuses were meaningful, as long as the DM wasn't meta-gaming the world to give you "appropriate" encounters. If my 4E cleric/wizard survived four levels of being attacked by level-1 goblins, then those level-1 goblins are going to be at -3 to hit me relative to my improved defenses.
The metagame is not the game.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 06, 2012 - 10:48AM
#124
|
|
|
... he is better at dodging parrying and evading blows.
... Dexterity modifies it too meaning agility and skill should play a role in determining AC.
You mean he has more HP, and has increased his dex through level advancement to get a higher AC? Because both of those happen right now with no scaling.
In 4E, skill at dodging/parrying/evading was one of the major things covered by 1/2 level bonus to AC. In 3E, skill at dodging/parrying/evading was covered by BAB-converted-to-AC-through Combat Expertise.
And now it's covered by actual dodging/parrying/evading skills.
Just because those skills have not been relized in a useful way YET. Does not mean they don't/won't exist.
And as opposed to those earlier representations that wound up being meaningless because of treadmill, these new skills will be actually relevant and useful (if designed better than they are now).
That is actual improvement, not symbolic improvement, which is the entire point of BA.
Except it is symbolic improvement.
A level 1 fighter hits a level 1 fighter on a 8+. A level 10 fighter hits a level 10 fighter on a 10+. A level 1 monster has lower AC on average than a level 10 monster. The treadmill is still there in 5e it is just slightly smaller and limited to be focused around wealth rather than skill. I'm saying chuck ability score increases and gear increases and turn those bonuses into meaningful skill increases.
Then you also have to account for people who aren't the fighter and thus may not have the parry maneuver, like the paladin, ranger, swashbuckler, cleric, rogue, barbarian, monk, etc. Imagine if all my examples used a class other than fighter with no access to parry. You have the same absurdity where the level 10 highly experienced swashbuckler PC is just as easily Ko'd by the puny goblins poison, or thrown 20 feet by the lowly monk, etc.
Also, you say the treadmill is bad, but are fine with it's existence in 5e. Why is that? Explain your reasoning...
Does it make no sense than two warriors of equal skill have the same chance of affecting eachother in combat? Does it make no sense that two warriors of differing skill have different chances of affecting eachother in combat?
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 06, 2012 - 10:53AM
#125
|
|
|
Removing number scale with leveling is one of the best improvemnts 5e has made so far. I never want to see another L23 Goblin Elite Goobstomper monster that can single-handedly destroy an entire villiage because the entire villiage guard can't hit him. Having different basic goblin monsters every other level just to appease some horribly unneccesary math feature was not only cumbersome but thematically goofy. As a GM, and player, I want to see higher level creatures that can be hit by lower levels, and lower level monsters still usable at higher levels. As a GM, trying to explain why entire bands of monsters became inconsequentuial to thew world around the party felt contrived, broke story and was just goofy. Needing level appropriate guards/villiagers/NPVs, or high-level minions for goblins/orcs/etc, was even goofier.
Also, Having to add and substract different, and growing, to-hit numbers every level was a drag, both unneccessary and cumbersome, slowing the game down. No more D20 +34 -12 +7, compared to an AC of 33. No more, ever, please?
The only issue I have right now with scaling removed, that I'm sure they will address, is the problem with skills only having two states, untrained and trained. I would like to see some advanced form of mastery for skills, but still simple to use. Maybe three states, untrained (+0 or no roll for complex areas such as engineering), trained (+3), expert (+6?). Expert status would require more investment than simply progressing from untrained to trained.
|
|
|
