|
7 months ago ::
Nov 27, 2012 - 12:38PM
#21
|
Date Joined:
Sep 19, 2006
|
I'm ok with Bounded Accuracy so far as Combat goes. Personally, I like lower numbers and keeping them relative across the board. Should they increase? Sure, but not to un-godly lengths JUST to make the numbers higher. For one, it completely eliminates lower-level monsters as even a threat and thus, sorta breaks my immersion. Goblins should be a deadly threat at really low levels, should give adventure's pause at moderate levels, and an annoying nuisance at high levels. They should never be totally ignored because they're numbers are super low and can be completely wiped with 1 spell. For another, it seems that the numbers increase to compete with monsters defenses and attacks, and they only increase to compete with adventurers as they level. Just seems like a treadmill that goes nowhere except to show math bloat. I'd rather a Adult Black Dragon have an AC of 19, with 1st level adventurers able to hit it 45-50% of the time but give him resistances and HP to mitigate just how powerful he is.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 27, 2012 - 12:38PM
#22
|
Date Joined:
Sep 15, 2008
|
Mand12, I disagree, but that the fact that we disagree sort of proves your point.
So. Maybe the solution isn't in a bounded scale. Maybe the solution is in creating an internal consistency of numbers in D&D. if a '5' actually meant something, it might feel more 'real'.
As it is, Levels scale from 1-30, stats go from 8-20, DC's go from 7-25, Stats go from 8-20 for PC's, 3-30 for NPC's and Monsters, Modifiers go from (-5 to +5), and damage goes from 1 - ?...
I think we can do better.
"Make things as simple as possible, but no simpler." - Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 27, 2012 - 12:39PM
#23
|
Date Joined:
Nov 30, 2010
|
....
We'll know exactly what WotC's target numbers are, because they'll say things like "The DC to bust a barred wooden door is 17 (Hard)."
Oh, and they did make those numbers public for 4e, (last page of the DMG rules update document) so you should check your research before posting wrong things.
yeah...they changed that during essentials, we actually had static DC tables for alot of things, infact my book of rules compedium still have the static tables (thought that was done by the Rob "Awesome" Heinsoo)...thanks Mearls...we all hate you for breaking 4e
I use that table, but i don't use the dificulty based on the party level...i use it for the level of the challenge or the obstacle...wooden door is a hard dc of level 1 even to a level 30 party
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 27, 2012 - 12:39PM
#24
|
|
|
....
We'll know exactly what WotC's target numbers are, because they'll say things like "The DC to bust a barred wooden door is 17 (Hard)."
Oh, and they did make those numbers public for 4e, (last page of the DMG rules update document) so you should check your research before posting wrong things.
One of the players guide book also had the target numbers for PC defense and attack
yeah...they changed that during essentials, we actually had static DC tables for alot of things, infact my book of rules compedium still have the static tables (thought that was done by the Rob "Awesome" Heinsoo)...thanks Mearls...we all hate you for breaking 4e
I use that table, but i don't use the dificulty based on the party level...i use it for the level of the challenge or the obstacle...wooden door is a hard dc of level 1 even to a level 30 party
Actually the tables were there from the very first DMG. They only later updated them because they found out that their own target numbers were wrong
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 27, 2012 - 12:47PM
#25
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
So. Maybe the solution isn't in a bounded scale. Maybe the solution is in creating an internal consistency of numbers in D&D. if a '5' actually meant something, it might feel more 'real'.
That's the whole point of Bounded Accuracy. A DC 15 Strength check to break something is a DC 15 Strength check to break something, no matter what level the person doing the breaking is. The DC is tied directly to the objective nature of the thing in question. That's what Bounded Accuracy does.
In fact, a stated goal of the system is for the DM to just know what DC to make a thing, as a result of this internal consistency of numbers. "easy" "medium" and "hard" are no longer moving targets.
Yes, PCs will improve over time. What they might consider easy relative to their own capability may change. But the objective label won't. The fact that they can, actually, hit those "Hard" DCs easily is the real character advancement, not just keeping pace with the treadmill.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 27, 2012 - 1:03PM
#26
|
Date Joined:
Sep 15, 2008
|
I understand and agree. Do you think they've succeeded? I would contend that they haven't. And I'll quote the 'DM guidelines' as support:
"Here’s another secret: You don’t actually have to set the DC before the player rolls the check.Decide whether the character succeeds based on the check result. You’ll probably find that your gut feeling (and the player’s) squares pretty well with the set DCs presented here. A number below 10 is never going to make it. A number in the low teens is good enough for an easy task. A number in the middle teens will succeed at a moderate task. And when a player rolls a 16 or better, there’s usually little question that the character succeeds.
Your players will never know." (also, if it is against the rules for me to post this, I will remove it.)
"Make things as simple as possible, but no simpler." - Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 27, 2012 - 1:05PM
#27
|
Date Joined:
Sep 15, 2008
|
I think we're getting somewhere with the current DC's, but there's actually only 7 Difficulty Classes: Trivial, Easy, Moderate, Hard, Very Hard, Formidable, and Nearly Impossible.
Listing the DC's as 7 - 25 is misleading.
"Make things as simple as possible, but no simpler." - Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 27, 2012 - 1:06PM
#28
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
No it isn't misleading, as there's nothing stopping you from labeling another DC as "medium-hard" and putting it between Moderate and Hard.
They've given us the full color spectrum, and while we can pick out Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, and Violet, that doesn't mean that we only have six colors.
As far as whether they've succeeded or not, since they haven't actually finished skills, monster, or class design, no they haven't succeeded. But they have succeeded at outlining a compelling theory and statement of design, that they're in the process of implementing. Don't get hung up on the details of any given packet to prove that they've hit the target or not. We have a long way to go.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 27, 2012 - 1:19PM
#29
|
Date Joined:
Sep 15, 2008
|
I agree. And I don't mean to get 'hung up' on the details, I'm here to contribute to making D&D the best game it can be, like you. I'm just asking questions because I want D&D to 'make sense'.
I think using 7 difficulty classes is actually better than 25, because then they mean more.
"Make things as simple as possible, but no simpler." - Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 27, 2012 - 1:38PM
#30
|
Date Joined:
May 11, 2006
|
Under the hood, you find math that can help codify the reasons behind some things. When done correctly, it makes sense.
The DC categories rise in increments of 3. Training in a skill adds +3 to your ability check. Thus, having a skill increases your effectiveness by one step up the difficulty chart.
|
|
|
