Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Expertise justification?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 4824246" data-attributes="member: 2011"><p>Actually, they said nothing of the sort. They said nothing about a "don't want it forced on them" group.</p><p></p><p>The question was:</p><p></p><p>What are we going to see to speed up combat at paragon and above?</p><p></p><p>Expertise was given as an example.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>First off, they admitted that they were trying to solve a problem here and they indicated that it was a math problem and a problem with the speed of combat at Paragon and above (they didn't say exactly what the problem was).</p><p></p><p>Second, this "wait and see" philosophy appears to be a reaction to the fact that so many people dislike the implementation. It's a "Oh yeah, we intended it to be a stopgap measure, yeah, yeah, that's the ticket, we intended to come up with a more permanent fix in the future".</p><p></p><p>One does not intentionally put a fix into the game system and intend for it to be replaced by errata at a later time (the very next sentences in the podcast were about a better errata system, hence the implication). That makes zero sense.</p><p></p><p>One fixes it the way they thought was best right away. In this case, the solution fixes a portion of the math and teed off part of the gaming community by making the fixes feats. Opps.</p><p></p><p>Now, they are backpedaling to say that they intended for the feats to be temporary and replaced by a more comprehensive solution if a large part of the gaming community takes them. Of course a large portion of the gaming community is going to take these feats. Everyone? No. Many people. Hell, yeah.</p><p></p><p>If their original intention was to find this out, good betting money at the time would have been that the answer was yes (+3 to hit, of course yes), so why not just put a better solution in right away? They could always errata any solution later.</p><p></p><p></p><p>It's pretty obvious. They put the fix in for a math bug dealing with the speed of higher level combat (they don't specify exactly which ones, but to hit is obvious from Expertise and possibly too many monster hit points which they discuss later in the broadcast). Good job WotC. But, they errored by making it a feat (not such a good job, but at least they tried). Now, they are trying to make it sound as if the feat idea is only temporarily if it seems like everyone wants to take the feats (a second mistake because it sounds illogical and hence disingenuous, you don't give people candy and say if everyone likes the candy, we'll give you a better candy later, you go straight to the better candy).</p><p></p><p>From my perspective, their hearts are in the right place, but they are going about it the wrong way. They are especially going about it the wrong way if this "more comprehensive solution for the game" ends up requiring people to buy another book.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="KarinsDad, post: 4824246, member: 2011"] Actually, they said nothing of the sort. They said nothing about a "don't want it forced on them" group. The question was: What are we going to see to speed up combat at paragon and above? Expertise was given as an example. First off, they admitted that they were trying to solve a problem here and they indicated that it was a math problem and a problem with the speed of combat at Paragon and above (they didn't say exactly what the problem was). Second, this "wait and see" philosophy appears to be a reaction to the fact that so many people dislike the implementation. It's a "Oh yeah, we intended it to be a stopgap measure, yeah, yeah, that's the ticket, we intended to come up with a more permanent fix in the future". One does not intentionally put a fix into the game system and intend for it to be replaced by errata at a later time (the very next sentences in the podcast were about a better errata system, hence the implication). That makes zero sense. One fixes it the way they thought was best right away. In this case, the solution fixes a portion of the math and teed off part of the gaming community by making the fixes feats. Opps. Now, they are backpedaling to say that they intended for the feats to be temporary and replaced by a more comprehensive solution if a large part of the gaming community takes them. Of course a large portion of the gaming community is going to take these feats. Everyone? No. Many people. Hell, yeah. If their original intention was to find this out, good betting money at the time would have been that the answer was yes (+3 to hit, of course yes), so why not just put a better solution in right away? They could always errata any solution later. It's pretty obvious. They put the fix in for a math bug dealing with the speed of higher level combat (they don't specify exactly which ones, but to hit is obvious from Expertise and possibly too many monster hit points which they discuss later in the broadcast). Good job WotC. But, they errored by making it a feat (not such a good job, but at least they tried). Now, they are trying to make it sound as if the feat idea is only temporarily if it seems like everyone wants to take the feats (a second mistake because it sounds illogical and hence disingenuous, you don't give people candy and say if everyone likes the candy, we'll give you a better candy later, you go straight to the better candy). From my perspective, their hearts are in the right place, but they are going about it the wrong way. They are especially going about it the wrong way if this "more comprehensive solution for the game" ends up requiring people to buy another book. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Expertise justification?
Top