hawkeyefan
Legend
So we can talk about D&D specifically, but any other RPG we have to translate into D&Disms.
Screw that.
Screw that.
Yes! Absolutely! Absolutely nobody said that, that is. C'mon man. Can you at least start responding to what it is that we are saying, rather than making stuff up like this? It's getting old. Nobody said that you have translate other RPGs into D&D jargon.So we can talk about D&D specifically, but any other RPG we have to translate into D&Disms.
Screw that.
A blacksmith is an expert. Hardly the SFHP I was describing. Heck, the other NPC classes aren't exactly special snowflakes either.
And if you don't like having this discussion with me, just don't respond. No need to be rude.
Yes! Absolutely! Absolutely nobody said that, that is. C'mon man. Can you at least start responding to what it is that we are saying, rather than making stuff up like this? It's getting old. Nobody said that you have translate other RPGs into D&D jargon.
that's still deceptive statistics. It's still ignoring the key variables: class, level, and AC.Well here's my response: if someone tells me that the fighter is only 5% better against the armoured knight than the guard, that will likewise lead some (many?) to make erroneous judgements. Because, in fact, the fighter is twice as good, and the normal way to convey "twice as good" using percentages is 100% better, not 5% better.
Don't do that. You are not good at inferring and got that "inference" completely wrong. It didn't exist. Just respond to what I say and nothing more and you will be fine. You've invented fiction no less than a dozen times in your responses to me in this thread, attributing your fictions to me each and every time. Stop it.You didn’t come right out and say it, no. But I inferred it from the things you did say. And if you don’t see why, I don’t know what to tell you.
Note that in the D&D Basic line, the second and third level fighters have no difference in to hit numbers from first; the same to hits are also used by 1st to 4th level Clerics and Theives, and 1st to 5th level Wizards.Even if a 1st level Fighter is only 5% better at fighting than a 0-level guard, that's still better. It's the exact same for a 2nd-level Fighter vs. a 1st-level one. But we shouldn't look at just hit points or attack rolls.
So what you are saying is that using specific numbers is very confusing and imprecise as it leads to many different views?Well here's my response: if someone tells me that the fighter is only 5% better against the armoured knight than the guard, that will likewise lead some (many?) to make erroneous judgements. Because, in fact, the fighter is twice as good, and the normal way to convey "twice as good" using percentages is 100% better, not 5% better.
QFT.My point is that D&D makes use of some highly specific terminology and then it turns out that when everyone is used to this language they don't even notice that it is unusual.
It reads like a moderator giving a clear yet subtle warning that his patience is running out for the nature of the discourse violating the rules.This reads like a threat.