Hybrid Characters: 272 Combinations?

I'm not sure why it matters.
Well, I was originally posting because I thought I may have been wrong, and knew that a bunch of guys on here are really good at stats. I was curious why my number was different.

But it appears my answer was correct and WotC just suck at Maths. Might explain why the math in 4e is a bit wonky. Maybe WotC should hire a stats master to crunch the numbers instead of just releasing products, followed by errata (stealth or otherwise)?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I'm not sure why it matters. Obviously they're thinking 17 x 16 = 272; even though that's not accurate, why on earth should anyone care? Is 272 possible combinations somehow exciting where 136 is not?
Are you kidding? 272 possible combinations would provide a somewhat adequate breadth of choice, but with only 136 I just don't why they even bothered with the idea in the first place...
 



My point, Flatus, is not that "getting maths right doesn't matter", but that "getting this figure exactly right doesn't matter". It's what they used to call "puff" in the advertising business - a claim which looks good but does not actually represent anything substantive. It's harmless - certainly no-one's game will be damaged by the fact that there are half as many options as Wizards claimed, given that 136 is itself a ludicrously large number for the sort of thing we're talking about.

You might as well quibble and say "well no there aren't really 136 options either because no-one will play some of them". It doesn't matter - the number isn't supposed to be an informative datum, it's intended to point out that there are "lots and lots of options here".
 

Remove ads

Top