Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf 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 Nest
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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*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!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Feat Taxes, or, It's That Time of the Week Again
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="Aulirophile" data-source="post: 5545355" data-attributes="member: 86312"><p>No, funny thing about facts, they aren't subject to debate. It is kind of weird you can't see that, but /shrug. I get you have an opinion... but your opinion isn't in way relevant when I'm dealing with objective information. It is subjective. Reasonable people can disagree about subjective things. Reasonable people cannot disagree about objective things if they are equally well informed. </p><p></p><p>Reasonable people can therefore disagree about the best method of fixing the <em>explicit </em>mistake in the system math (according to the people who made the system, ffs). Reasonable people cannot disagree that the mistake <em>exists. </em>Because it does. </p><p></p><p>So. Expertise <em>is </em>fix for the math. According to the people who made the game (question: Do you ever go over to Parker Brothers and argue with them about the rules for Monopoly and tell them how you think it ought to be? Just curious). Not an opinion. </p><p></p><p>The disconnect for you is quite evident. You can't separate your opinion from the objective material. </p><p></p><p>Also you <em>really </em>don't seem to understand how extensive the math in question is. We're only dealing with statistical averages so no, it can't be proved absolutely... but it <em>can </em>be proved beyond reasonable statistical significance. You're welcome to calculate the baseline DPR and DPE for every given class role (been done) compare it monster HP and defenses (been done) and from that work out exactly how many rounds each E+y takes on average, and what the standard deviations are (been done). Then you can take that, work <em>backwards, </em>and arrive at a certain hit% that PCs must have to achieve that number of rounds. And, again, it <em>doesn't matter </em>if you get less then a certain number of rounds, or a higher amount of DPR/DPE, it only matters that you don't get <em>more </em>rounds or <em>less </em>DPR/DPE(at least not more in a statistically significant way)<em>. </em>Because that is the designed intention. </p><p></p><p>You'll find the minimum accuracy needed is 55%. You will also find, as you progress into Paragon, that those "increased options" which mostly just do more damage, account for a bump in monster HP. I mean, the math isn't perfect, there are corner cases, and strange scenarios, and you'll of course be doing this multiple times to account for changes in Monster math to try and equalize the curve, but again, the system was only designed to maintain a specific statistical average. </p><p></p><p>You will also notice it doesn't quite work out without Expertise. </p><p></p><p>Have I mentioned that WotC actually hired professional statisticians early in development? There is a reason this works out so well in the standard cases. The fact that they screwed it up later is kind of irrelevant (though they obviously did, see the skill systems extensive revisions).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Aulirophile, post: 5545355, member: 86312"] No, funny thing about facts, they aren't subject to debate. It is kind of weird you can't see that, but /shrug. I get you have an opinion... but your opinion isn't in way relevant when I'm dealing with objective information. It is subjective. Reasonable people can disagree about subjective things. Reasonable people cannot disagree about objective things if they are equally well informed. Reasonable people can therefore disagree about the best method of fixing the [I]explicit [/I]mistake in the system math (according to the people who made the system, ffs). Reasonable people cannot disagree that the mistake [I]exists. [/I]Because it does. So. Expertise [I]is [/I]fix for the math. According to the people who made the game (question: Do you ever go over to Parker Brothers and argue with them about the rules for Monopoly and tell them how you think it ought to be? Just curious). Not an opinion. The disconnect for you is quite evident. You can't separate your opinion from the objective material. Also you [I]really [/I]don't seem to understand how extensive the math in question is. We're only dealing with statistical averages so no, it can't be proved absolutely... but it [I]can [/I]be proved beyond reasonable statistical significance. You're welcome to calculate the baseline DPR and DPE for every given class role (been done) compare it monster HP and defenses (been done) and from that work out exactly how many rounds each E+y takes on average, and what the standard deviations are (been done). Then you can take that, work [I]backwards, [/I]and arrive at a certain hit% that PCs must have to achieve that number of rounds. And, again, it [I]doesn't matter [/I]if you get less then a certain number of rounds, or a higher amount of DPR/DPE, it only matters that you don't get [I]more [/I]rounds or [I]less [/I]DPR/DPE(at least not more in a statistically significant way)[I]. [/I]Because that is the designed intention. You'll find the minimum accuracy needed is 55%. You will also find, as you progress into Paragon, that those "increased options" which mostly just do more damage, account for a bump in monster HP. I mean, the math isn't perfect, there are corner cases, and strange scenarios, and you'll of course be doing this multiple times to account for changes in Monster math to try and equalize the curve, but again, the system was only designed to maintain a specific statistical average. You will also notice it doesn't quite work out without Expertise. Have I mentioned that WotC actually hired professional statisticians early in development? There is a reason this works out so well in the standard cases. The fact that they screwed it up later is kind of irrelevant (though they obviously did, see the skill systems extensive revisions). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Feat Taxes, or, It's That Time of the Week Again
Top