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="MrMyth" data-source="post: 5545396" data-attributes="member: 61155"><p>That the base math is different at higher levels is an objective things. That the number of powers is different at higher levels is an objective things. </p><p> </p><p>What the combination of these two elements says about the effective power level of the PCs at either level is not an objective fact, and reasonable people can have entirely different interpretations of how those two elements interact. </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Well, no, but I'm not especially invested in Monopoly. But I'll tell you what I did do! See, also early in 4E, there was a big commotion about how the Skill DCs were too high for Skill Challenges (primarily due to those DCs also being used for Skill Stunts, and the presence of a footnote that increased the DC table specifically for skills.)</p><p> </p><p>WotC responded with a new table that both lowered the DCs <em>and </em>removed the footnote. And I felt the DCs were now too low. And when they put out a series of columns on Skill Challenges, I typically pointed out whenever they adjusted for this, as those articles tended to use higher DCs than the standard - and the designers continued to insist that, no, the lower DCs were what they wanted the standard to be. </p><p> </p><p>Until, you know, they fixed them. And started using DCs pretty much spot on with what I and others already used. </p><p> </p><p>So... yeah, I tend to trust game designers more than random folks off the street, but that doesn't make them infallible. </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>I think it might be the other way around. Or, rather, than you cannot disconnect the objective information you have (the math) from the conclusion you are drawing (the system is flawed). </p><p> </p><p>My point of contension is that you cannot isolate those two elements and ignore all other elements of the game, and that by doing so, you are coming to a faulty conclusion. </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Problem is, that math isn't <em>extensive enough</em>. It is a bunch of math done without accounting for pretty much any power choices, items, feats, paragon paths, etc, that PCs are taking advantage of. No one has run the math for every combination of options, nor are we <em>capable </em>of determing what the most commonly chosen options among all groups might be. </p><p> </p><p>Trying to pretend this is clearcut, and handwaving that most powers just 'add some damage' that is accounted for in increased monster hp... sorry, I don't agree.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="MrMyth, post: 5545396, member: 61155"] That the base math is different at higher levels is an objective things. That the number of powers is different at higher levels is an objective things. What the combination of these two elements says about the effective power level of the PCs at either level is not an objective fact, and reasonable people can have entirely different interpretations of how those two elements interact. Well, no, but I'm not especially invested in Monopoly. But I'll tell you what I did do! See, also early in 4E, there was a big commotion about how the Skill DCs were too high for Skill Challenges (primarily due to those DCs also being used for Skill Stunts, and the presence of a footnote that increased the DC table specifically for skills.) WotC responded with a new table that both lowered the DCs [I]and [/I]removed the footnote. And I felt the DCs were now too low. And when they put out a series of columns on Skill Challenges, I typically pointed out whenever they adjusted for this, as those articles tended to use higher DCs than the standard - and the designers continued to insist that, no, the lower DCs were what they wanted the standard to be. Until, you know, they fixed them. And started using DCs pretty much spot on with what I and others already used. So... yeah, I tend to trust game designers more than random folks off the street, but that doesn't make them infallible. I think it might be the other way around. Or, rather, than you cannot disconnect the objective information you have (the math) from the conclusion you are drawing (the system is flawed). My point of contension is that you cannot isolate those two elements and ignore all other elements of the game, and that by doing so, you are coming to a faulty conclusion. Problem is, that math isn't [I]extensive enough[/I]. It is a bunch of math done without accounting for pretty much any power choices, items, feats, paragon paths, etc, that PCs are taking advantage of. No one has run the math for every combination of options, nor are we [I]capable [/I]of determing what the most commonly chosen options among all groups might be. Trying to pretend this is clearcut, and handwaving that most powers just 'add some damage' that is accounted for in increased monster hp... sorry, I don't agree. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Feat Taxes, or, It's That Time of the Week Again
Top