Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Beginning of the End" data-source="post: 5321466" data-attributes="member: 55271">There is a point at which someone is so wrong that you can only point at them and say, &quot;You're wrong.&quot; You have reached that point.But allow me to elaborate on the precise nature of your error.First, let's agree that we're talking strictly about the DMG guidelines for tailored encounters. Because, self-evidently, the DMG guidelines for status quo encounters contradict you entirely (and you admit as much).With that being said, let's look at Table 3-2 on pg. 49. Here we find that the appropriate encounters for a party vary from &quot;EL lower than party level&quot; to &quot;EL 5+ higher than party level&quot;.This is obviously still inconvenient for your thesis. So let's limit ourselves even more: Let's drop that pesky &quot;+&quot; and assume that &quot;lower than party level&quot; can also be limited to 5 levels.Still, 5 is a pretty small number, right? That's &quot;close to the EL (sic) of the party&quot;, right?Well, not really. Let's take the example of a 10th level party: We've now defined a range of encounters from EL 5 to EL 15. That's a total of 11 different ELs. The core game is only designed to support 20 levels. In other words, the range of encounters we're talking about is 50% of the game's total range.So when you say that &quot;they should all be close to the EL (sic) of the party&quot;, it's like saying &quot;everyone west of the Mississippi lives close to Los Angeles&quot;. It's just flat-out wrong.Man, that would be pretty silly. It's probably a good thing nobody said that, right?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Beginning of the End, post: 5321466, member: 55271"] There is a point at which someone is so wrong that you can only point at them and say, "You're wrong." You have reached that point. But allow me to elaborate on the precise nature of your error. First, let's agree that we're talking strictly about the DMG guidelines for tailored encounters. Because, self-evidently, the DMG guidelines for status quo encounters contradict you entirely (and you admit as much). With that being said, let's look at Table 3-2 on pg. 49. Here we find that the appropriate encounters for a party vary from "EL lower than party level" to "EL 5+ higher than party level". This is obviously still inconvenient for your thesis. So let's limit ourselves even [b]more[/b]: Let's drop that pesky "+" and assume that "lower than party level" can also be limited to 5 levels. Still, 5 is a pretty small number, right? That's "close to the EL (sic) of the party", right? Well, not really. Let's take the example of a 10th level party: We've now defined a range of encounters from EL 5 to EL 15. That's a total of 11 different ELs. The core game is only designed to support 20 levels. In other words, the range of encounters we're talking about is 50% of the game's total range. So when you say that "they should all be close to the EL (sic) of the party", it's like saying "everyone west of the Mississippi lives close to Los Angeles". It's just flat-out wrong. Man, that [i]would[/i] be pretty silly. It's probably a good thing nobody said that, right? [/QUOTE]

Verification