Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9285353" data-attributes="member: 6790260">But not because it's fine in novels. That is precisely the point. Your reasoning does not defend the point made.The claim was that it is never a problem, no matter what, to add an option; that doing so could not ever be an issue. This claim is false. The hyperbolic examples simply demonstrate a situation that no one could possibly accept.Hence: Simply arguing "we're just adding an option, it's not like that could possibly hurt you" is false. You must further demonstrate that it is an appropriate, fitting option amongst the ones already in play. Which is precisely the thing others are complaining about. That this option drives out other alternatives.Except that they, too, have been subjected to the mathematical flattening! You can't have it both ways. You can't have flattened math and not-flattened math. It must be one or the other--by definition. If you have un-flattened the math for some options, then by definition the math in general is not flattened!Just no. You can only fight flattened-math opponents. Those are the only ones allowed to exist in 5e. Yes, some of them will be at the upper end of what little numeric progression is permitted.The highest possible AC for a creature in 5e is 25. The lowest is, naturally, 0. Even accounting for the difference in maximum level, reducing it to ~34, that's 9 points lower than the maximal 4e equivalent (which, perhaps ironically, is Tiamat vs Bahamut.) Even if we look at a more typical top end, it's still ~32 vs ~22. Meaning the absolute strongest, toughest opponents a player would typically face...have approximately the same defenses as a highly-defensively-built PC. (Plate + shield + defense fighting style = AC 21. Something a character can achieve at, roughly, level 6, depending on how quickly they get the money required to buy a suit of plate.)But "some chance to succeed" is mostly pointless if...well, "60% of the time, it fails every time," to twist a popular meme.Group checks do not even slightly do what I described.Well, other than an active and pervasive effort to avoid their inclusion and a culture of play actively hostile to the concept of statistical testing of mechanics.</blockquote>

Verification