Canon talk:RPG Terminology

LWQW

The problem with Linear Warriors, Quadratic Wizards is that it's wrong: a level 20 Warrior can slaughter 20 level 1 Warriors without breaking a sweat. The balance WotC declared that it was going for is exponential, which is what we call High balance, I believe. --Foxwarrior (talk) 01:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Not really. The multiplier could be 5, 10, or even 100, but it's still level * multiplier, where a wizard progresses at 2 ^ level.

In short, linear does not mean to add +1 per level. Just that it's on a linear graph and is in a straight line--regardless of how steep it is. --Ghostwheel (talk) 01:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so let's say that Fighters are linear because they start at a value of 1 and add +5 per level, yes? So a level 20 Warrior (value 96) now has to fight 96 level 1 Warriors (value 1*96), but only 16 level 2 Warriors (value 6*16), which they can certainly also slaughter.

To generalize, if a Warrior's power is the function Power(Level) = m*Level+b, where b >= -m and m >= 0 because level 1 characters aren't worth less than nothing and level 2 characters are stronger than level 1 characters, the number of level 2 characters a level 20 Warrior would have to face cannot be greater than 20 (m=arbitrarily high value, b=negative that) or less than 1 (m=0).

And 2 ^ level is exponential, not quadratic.

I'd guess that the most accurate description would probably be Quadratic Warriors, Exponential Wizards, where the base of the exponent for Wizards is a tiny bit higher than 2. --Foxwarrior (talk) 02:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Would This Be The Place...

So, as per the header, would this be the place to add something like "The Gentleman's Agreement" and "Beer n'Pretzels Gaming"? Not that I'm necessarily qualified to write definitions for that, but I'm curious. --Ganteka Future (talk) 03:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)