Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="JGulick" data-source="post: 4385607" data-attributes="member: 66409">Yes, I worry we may be back in what was one of 3.5's bigger problems, and already haunts the edges of 4E, what I call the &quot;double-patch&quot;.&nbsp; That is, two groups/individuals develop fixes for a flaw, and rather than an editor selecting between them to use whichever is best, they apply BOTH.It's (I believe) what led us to have Astral Diamonds and Residuum. They're both fixes for the high-end-treasure-weight problem, and they're both (if examined a bit) actually the SAME fix with different names (except that Residuum actually has additional uses, making it the clearly superior partner of the two).Here, we have two fixes, one a re-working of the table so the numbers actually match their purpose, the other a more simplistic removal of the footnotes.&nbsp; But the footnotes served a purpose... they divided attribute rolls from attacks with weapons from skill checks, each of which have unique needs in their DC/Defense setting due to their unique sets of available modifiers.&nbsp; That is, attribute checks have very few available modifiers, attacks with weapons have essentially one (proficiency bonus), and skills have several (training, focus, and racial bonuses).&nbsp; All can get item bonuses and power bonuses, of course.What we ended up with is what you get when you double-patch, a swing too far in the direction of movement.&nbsp; Before, all checks based on the old table with footnotes were somewhat too hard.&nbsp; Now, individual skill checks are vastly too easy (except that traps, monster entries, diseases, etc. remain unchanged and still old-style), attacks will be slightly too easy, and attribute checks (which include attacks without weapons) are probably about right.Which suggests to me a need to restore the footnotes.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="JGulick, post: 4385607, member: 66409"] Yes, I worry we may be back in what was one of 3.5's bigger problems, and already haunts the edges of 4E, what I call the "double-patch". That is, two groups/individuals develop fixes for a flaw, and rather than an editor selecting between them to use whichever is best, they apply BOTH. It's (I believe) what led us to have Astral Diamonds [i]and[/i] Residuum. They're both fixes for the high-end-treasure-weight problem, and they're both (if examined a bit) actually the SAME fix with different names (except that Residuum actually has additional uses, making it the clearly superior partner of the two). Here, we have two fixes, one a re-working of the table so the numbers actually match their purpose, the other a more simplistic removal of the footnotes. But the footnotes served a purpose... they divided attribute rolls from attacks with weapons from skill checks, each of which have unique needs in their DC/Defense setting due to their unique sets of available modifiers. That is, attribute checks have very few available modifiers, attacks with weapons have essentially one (proficiency bonus), and skills have several (training, focus, and racial bonuses). All can get item bonuses and power bonuses, of course. What we ended up with is what you get when you double-patch, a swing too far in the direction of movement. Before, all checks based on the old table with footnotes were somewhat too hard. Now, individual skill checks are vastly too easy (except that traps, monster entries, diseases, etc. remain unchanged and still old-style), attacks will be slightly too easy, and attribute checks (which include attacks without weapons) are probably about right. Which suggests to me a need to restore the footnotes. [/QUOTE]

Verification