Difference between revisions of "Canon talk:RPG Terminology"
From Dungeons and Dragons Wiki
Foxwarrior (talk | contribs) (→LWQW: new section) |
Ghostwheel (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
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. --[[User:Foxwarrior|Foxwarrior]] ([[User talk:Foxwarrior|talk]]) 01:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC) | 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. --[[User:Foxwarrior|Foxwarrior]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Ghostwheel|Ghostwheel]] ([[User talk:Ghostwheel|talk]]) 01:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 01:48, 19 December 2012
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)
