NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jhaelen" data-source="post: 4996010" data-attributes="member: 46713">Well, if you believe that it will be more fun for the players, just _tell_ them, their characters have just been hit by an aura... Personally, I don't think it would change anything. It will still frustrate them.They will expect it, if they've read any of your posts <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />I still firmly believe that being hit on a 2 will only happen in very rare circumstances. As much as you don't like to admit it (or continue to insist it isn't relevant for this discussion), the very same thing could happen in 3E, as well. And I'm not even sure if it's been as rare as it probably is in 4E.Sure, but it isn't everything - which seems to be a common misunderstanding. It's also important to look at the premise for most of the math discussions I've seen:To simplify the math, they make assumptions, which may or may not be realistic. Typically, they ignore the bulk of what is part of a realistic encounter. The worst offenders use a one-on-one arena combat situation without any terrain features or using anything except at-will powers. IMHO, that's _worse_ than not doing the math, because it will give a false impression to those players who are impressed by and tend to trust the results of such comparisons.It's similar to what the saying is about statistics: 'the only statistics you can trust are those you falsified yourself'. Ignore the premise and the results will be misleading.I know, I've read about it. And I don't think it's representative <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> Mind, it's clearly better than not doing any playtesting, at all. But it also isn't sufficient to make any projections about the game as a whole.No, that's not my POV. And it's pure conjecture on your part. I happen to believe, those feats had already been written when PHB1 was released. They're intended for players who care about maximizing certain aspects of their characters. See above about players who care about defenses vs. those that don't. Ditto for attack bonuses. Imho, they're overcompensating.I know, I'm in a minority, here (see Kzach's poll about this issue), but unless proven wrong, that's what I think.Well, except this is version 4.0 <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />But, yeah, of course, they might do things differently now. They might even come up with ways to make the game even more fun. The changes to creating solo monsters are an example for this.</blockquote>

Verification