Stats scaling past 18/19

[Dandu]

So basically, you're arguing that it is impossible to assign any class a power level or anything of the sort because there are too many variables to take into account, such as campaign money level, campaign difficulty, player skill, quality of decision making on any particular day, degree of group co-operation, and etc.

 

[Alzrius]

So basically, you're arguing that it is impossible to assign any class a power level or anything of the sort because there are too many variables to take into account, such as campaign money level, campaign difficulty, player skill, quality of decision making on any particular day, degree of group co-operation, and etc.

I'm saying that theory-crafting about what classes are more useful than others, based on their class mechanics alone, is too limited to say with any degree of accuracy how true that will turn out to be in actual game-play.

 

[kitcik]

So, you won't create an encounter because you think we'd make a build designed specifically against it (even though I offered to do it blind).

You won't make a series of encounters because you don't want to waste your time playing D&D (when you could instead spend your time arguing about it).

And you don't want to design a character to meet a CR appropriate encounter... {because you realize it is futile and will disprove your assertions?}

I guess that just about ends my interest in this thread.

 

[Dandu]

I'm saying that theory-crafting about what classes are more useful than others, based on their class mechanics alone, is too limited to say with any degree of accuracy how true that will turn out to be in actual game-play.

Can we acknowledge that each class as different mechanics, of varying quality?

And surely the quality of a class affects actual gameplay?

I imagine there's going to be a great difference if you handed the guy in the party who loves to play martial characters a Warrior vs a Fighter vs a Warblade, for instance?

 

[Alzrius]

So, you won't create an encounter because you think we'd make a build designed specifically against it (even though I offered to do it blind).

I've already answered this - first of all, yes of course you'd make a build designed specifically against it; that's the substance of your entire argument. Second, the offer to "do it blind" still wouldn't prove your point - something I already pointed out - which by definition proves mine.

You won't make a series of encounters because you don't want to waste your time playing D&D (when you could instead spend your time arguing about it).

It'd be a waste to play with you, certainly, as you've shown that your play-style is incredibly limited. Likewise, your comment about arguing about D&D applies far more to yourself, though you can't seem to see that.

And you don't want to design a character to meet a CR appropriate encounter... {because you realize it is futile and will disprove your assertions?}

See above regarding the myth of "CR-appropriate." Likewise, I've already proved that your entire position is inherently flawed...

I guess that just about ends my interest in this thread.

...and now that you can't support it anymore, you leave. Seems pretty open-and-shut to me.

That is true, but that doesn't really change the fact that each class as different mechanics, of varying quality. And surely the quality of your class affects actual gameplay? I imagine there's going to be a great difference if you handed the guy in the party who loves to play martial characters a Warrior vs a Fighter vs a Warblade, for instance?

I'll grant that each class has different mechanics, but "quality" is relative. There are plenty of people who prefer the OSR-style of D&D, and the fighters of that era are essentially 3.0 Warriors.

 

[Dandu]

Second, the offer to "do it blind" still wouldn't prove your point - something I already pointed out - which by definition proves mine.

what

...and now that you can't support it anymore, you leave. Seems pretty open-and-shut to me.

Being right isn't an endurance test, you know. If it were, we'd be using Con checks instead of Int checks.

 

[Alzrius]

what

See above regarding why you making characters and my making encounters for them wouldn't definitely prove anything.

Being right isn't an endurance test, you know. If it were, we'd be using Con checks instead of Int checks.

When someone resorts to childish jabs and then quickly follows it up with "and I'm done here" statements, it's a pretty good sign that they're failing their Int checks.

 

[Dandu]

"I'm right because you're wrong" isn't a good mantra to operate by.

 

[Alzrius]

"I'm right because you're wrong" isn't a good mantra to operate by.

I agree, hence why I've been showing why I'm right. That the other guys are wrong is just a bonus.

 

[Dandu]

I agree, hence why I've been showing why I'm right. That the other guys are wrong is just a bonus.

I am confused. If you are right, then how come two very experienced players/DMs and myself (actually, there are quite a few members of the boards who, though they have differences of opinion on the exact details, who disagree with you and agree more with me) come to completely different conclusions about the game based on their actual gaming experiences?