D&D 5E Is 5E Special

[UngeheuerLich]

i don't think that is a modern thing... mark twain said "There are three types of lies... lies, damn lies, and statistics" long before anyone here was born (most likely before our parents were)and we skew older then teh average D&D player...

my issue (and I beleive his) is when you manipulate the statistics to say things, or just infer things not in them... like "4e out sold 3e so 4e is better" or "1 in 5 babies born are chinese (true) so if YOU have 4 kids and your pregnant (or your wife is) with twins odds are good they are chinese"

The difference is today, that today you can have 1000 independant evaluations of * statistics, and only 3 state that * is not changing, and some (former) people of interest feel that those 3 are right.

To your other concerns: yes, wrongly applied statistics are everywhere, and you are well served to not believe any of them without thinking.
This is why I actually mentioned it. Drawing the conclusion that people get confused when you see zero people who actually are is easily detected as a lie.

*editited out because of the no politics rule, although it is not politics but science.

 

[Minigiant]

The 4e essentials slayer, knight, warpriest, mage, and thief would have rocked in 2014 environment. Easy to built, easy to play, balanced classes. Ez money.

Woulda killed for a 4e DNDB.

 

[clearstream]

3.5's action economy was fine. 3e's was different and much more confusing.

In the Rules Compendium published toward the end of 3.5's arc, is listed the following tempo-constructs

1. standard action
2. move action
3. full-round action
4. free action
5. swift action
6. immediate action
7. not an action
8. restricted activity

That's followed by a list of about 100 specific "Actions in Combat". From Activate Magic Item to Trip. I didn't find the 3.5 action economy confusing, but it seems pretty complicated for anyone coming to it fresh.

 

[Vaalingrade]

This is bollocks and shows a lack of understanding what I said:

No, I understand what I said. I find fault with your methodology.

Which is the actual problem with the kids or whoever these days whose source is usually 'trust me, bro'.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Have you ever actually witnessed any person being confused by it? I haven’t.

Hello. It's a pleasure to meet you.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

No, I understand what I said. I find fault with your methodology.

Which is the actual problem with the kids or whoever these days whose source is usually 'trust me, bro'.

You are correct. I just wanted to point out that a conclusion can not be drawn by the available data. The statistic given was a lie, but my conclusion was not better.

What I should have said:
Your statistic is bollocks. You should at least try to find a sample that at least seems to allow for your conclusion.

If a sample has 0 individuals that have problems with a rule, a conclusion that the rules are difficult to understand does not follow any logic or statistic I know of.

If you drew the conclusion, that not a lot of people have problems with the rules, at least seems to make sense. And if the sample is reliable (big enough and representative) then you might even draw the conclusion with a fixed margin of error.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

No, I understand what I said.

This is a good start

I didn't deny that. Either it was a typo or you misread my post.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Hello. It's a pleasure to meet you.

What confused you about action and bonus action?

 

[Oofta]

What confused you about action and bonus action?

The only time I've seen confusion is with spells. Even then, it's more about the specific rule than bonus action themselves.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The only time I've seen confusion is with spells. Even then, it's more about the specific rule than bonus action themselves.

Right, I’ve seen confusion about cast 2 spells in a turn, and people forgetting that they have to take the attack action in order to use an ability that says “when you take the attack action” in it’s description, but not about what a bonus action is.