Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="firesnakearies" data-source="post: 5193582" data-attributes="member: 71334">I think that this is really the crux of the whole argument, and the biggest issue I have with it.  This perception, this idea that there's a problem here.  That's what I disagree with.I think the fact that you "need" to use the various methods of increasing accuracy (either through character build, teamwork, tactics in combat, or buffs and debuffs) is in fact a great thing, not a problem.To me, saying that we shouldn't "need" to use those various (and by epic tier, very plentiful) means of boosting accuracy in order to be effective is a little bit like saying, "I want to play chess, against reasonably skilled players, and have a fair chance of winning.  Oh, but I only want to use my knights and bishops.  I don't like the other pieces, so I don't want to have to use them to win.  So if chess forces me to use all of my pieces in order to do well, then that's a problem with the game design."The arguments I see over and over for why the math is "broken" and these accuracy feats are needed, or adjustments to PC attack bonuses or monster defenses are needed, pretty much amount to, "We want to build our characters ineffectively, AND use poor tactics, AND not help each other as a team, but still hit often and win quickly.  So, fix the math so we can, k?"That "+26 to hit AC" guy, I don't really accept him as the "average striker" at 24th level.  He seems almost deliberately weak to me.  A stock Human Fighter built using nothing but the original Player's Handbook can have an "all the time" +32 versus AC at level 24.  Nothing but the PHB!  No expertise, no weird items or paragon paths or feats from any other books.  (Yes, that's the maximal accuracy character, so it's reasonable to assume that most characters won't have quite that big of a bonus, but still, it's a far cry from +26.)Then, at epic tier especially, there are the tons and tons of ways to get combat advantage, to grant each other (or oneself) big bonuses to attack (even for the entire encounter), to debuff the enemies' defenses a lot, and so on.  Even that "+26 vs. AC" guy should very often be able to take advantage of these things, making it significantly easier to hit.The only time a problem would arise is if you've got players who not only won't build their characters to be accurate, but ALSO won't use the huge variety of buffs/debuffs and tactical modifiers available to temporarily boost their accuracy.A 24th level character who is seriously rolling only +26 versus AC 40 on a regular basis is playing poorly, and his team is playing poorly.  Shouldn't someone playing poorly be having a bit of a tougher time?  Isn't having a harder time hitting a reasonable consequence of not playing well?  Shouldn't we be expecting people, by 24th level, to be bringing their gameplay to a bit higher caliber than that?  And if not, and they're missing a lot, making things harder . . . well, don't you think that's a reasonable design?If you want to play chess and only use your knights and bishops, go ahead.  Have fun!  But don't claim that chess is broken and unreasonably difficult, at that point.The problem with adjusting the math in order to balance the game for mediocre characters and mediocre tactics is this...What happens then when people DO play well?  When you just give everyone a blanket +3 to hit and lower the defenses of the tough monsters by -2, so that now, the math for the "average" character who is taking advantage of NO available situational/tactical/teamwork bonuses works out to let him hit more often . . . then the people who ARE "using all of their pieces" are basically just going to auto-hit everything, and the game becomes stupidly, trivially easy.Take "+32 guy" from above, and now give him expertise (free or otherwise), and combat advantage, and even a modest average +2 extra bonus from all of the buffs and debuffs that will be applied by a skilled, smart group working together as a team at epic levels, and now he's hitting that AC 40 soldier on a natural 2.The game is already easy as written, even without "fixing" the math to allow people to play stupidly and still auto-win everything.  Again, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with doing it.  It's not a "bad" thing to do, making the game easier or less tactically demanding.  I'm sure that it increases the fun for many players.But I'm absolutely still disputing the claim that its "necessary" in any sort of mathematical sense, or that the game's design is "broken" without such changes.  I'm rejecting the idea that the guy actually rolling +26 versus AC 40 at level 24 is really just an "average player" who is playing reasonably well, and thus getting screwed by the game math.  I don't believe that's how real players at that level actually play very often, or if they do, then their problem isn't the "system", it's their own poor grasp of it (or deliberate choice to make things hard on themselves).I'm not saying it's wrong to change chess.  I'm just saying that "chess is broken and needs to be fixed, because whenever I play using only my knights, I lose" is a ridiculous, nonsense argument.  And the same goes for D&D.</blockquote>

Verification