Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lokiare" data-source="post: 6264001" data-attributes="member: 83996">Sure and then at level 2 or 3 after aquiring 10,000gp from the average adventure they will easily upgrade to 20 AC if not higher (depending on DM and magic item acquisition).The problem is we've seen what they do with math, where in 4E the CharOp board found glaring mistakes right after the release of each product. Things that should have been caught right away. Heck we see that in each play test document. I have no hope that WotC will make a mathematically sound game on their own. Hopefully they will hire a few mathematicians to go over their work before releasing it and test every combination of features with every other combination of features for math flaws.Are they intentionally trying to break the game? Because I can point out a number of things that will throw the game out of wack in play. Its more balanced than 3E, but no where near as balanced as 4E and to me 4E wasn't all that balanced, but it was a step in the right direction.Really? That shouldn't be in contention at all. Turning the wheel uses quite a bit of strength especially if you are going against the current. Trimming the sails must be a charisma check in your world right? Because pulling on a rope bearing 100+ pounds of pressure is more about looking good than having strength. Holding a rope that has several hundred pounds of wind pressure pulling on it while you are trying to tie it off must be Wisdom right? Climbing in 4E is considered an Athletics check but in other editions it was dexterity based so that's a 50/50 split. I would wager that about half of the checks you are going to make are going to be Strength based and the other half are going to be Dex based.Nice try to paint me in a bad light. Doesn't work though. I had problems before with working from different documents and I do read every post people who discuss things with me put out there. I am making sure we are looking at the same documents before I proceed so there is no confusion.The fancy words aren't going to win the argument. I talk in normal non-fancy words so my arguments are easier to understand for people that don't know all the facy technical words.To reply to your argument though, I've responded to every argument put to me despite the logical fallacy of the shot gun approach that people have been firing them at me. If I missed one feel free to point it out. I'll make a direct response to it so you won't miss it.If you are implying that D&D doesn't rank weapons based on size, then you would be wrong. All large heavy weapons deal 1d10, 1d12, or 2d6 damage. All medium one handed weapons deal 1d8. All light small weapons deal 1d6. All one handed extremely small weapons deal 1d4. Its very easy to see why the small sword would go in the 1d6 category. Since Short Sword isn't a real sword or even a category, only a description of any sword that is short, we can easily fit the small duel sword into that category. The only thing that doesn't match is that the small duel sword is peircing only and the short sword is slashing and peircing, but then again they have the rapier as peircing only when it was actually slashing and peircing.No, due to bounded accuracy there are some archetypes that are completely unworkable like the light armored fighter that has to use strength. That ends up badly with some dead characters. I've proven with facts and math over and over that many common archetypes are not viable. Now if you'd care to post some facts we could discuss it.The nature of arguments is you present new evidence as old evidence is countered or ignored. Its not 'shifting the argument' its covering more ground and furthering the discussion. Its basic discussion practice.</blockquote>

Verification