Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7236391" data-attributes="member: 996">It was a D-ring binder, but aside from that, yeah, dead-on.&nbsp;Yes, but this is a different point.&nbsp; In 5e, bonuses go from +1 to +5 if you're better than average, but average is 10-11, and better starts at 12 and ends in 20 -&nbsp; in 1e, depending on stat, better gave you a +1 to +4, but better started at 15 (at the earliest) and ended at 18. (STR was wildly aberrant that way, better started at 16 for a +1, but went up to +6 at 18/00)&nbsp; Point being, bonuses were clustered more on the tails of the bell curve.&nbsp; I believe that's supposed to counter your point about the curve not being as flat as it should be, giving too many 18s, but, obviously, you get just as many 18s on 3d6, and a high bonus for those 18s.&nbsp; ::shrug::&nbsp;Meh, or stats with no impact:&nbsp; 10s.&nbsp;&nbsp; But 5e actually gives everyone in the MM stats, including all the sample NPCs, even the quintessentially-meh Commoner.&nbsp;Apparently, he feels the criticism of 5e came from a different angle, and that you're now arguing the opposite facts being true to push back.&nbsp;&nbsp; It's a different point about a different point, though.&nbsp; Before, you were saying that stats ultimately didn't matter in 5e, because the difference of a point of bonus here or there was dwarfed by class abilities and player skill.&nbsp; Now, you're arguing that the difference of even percentage points matters.&nbsp; But it's a different context.&nbsp; Painting a picture of the population, a world-buidling context, which Hussar doesn't even recognize as a valid context for considering the rules.In the literal sense, though, he is right, you were arguing that the difference between a 10 and a 14 is nothing in 5e, when it's a +2 to a fair range of important things, like saves/attack/damage/DCs/skills and now arguing that the difference between 10 and 14 is huge, when it's just carrying capacity and % chances to bend an iron bar.&nbsp;1e /is/ terribly relevant to 5e.&nbsp;Amen!&nbsp;Sure, there are good traditions and bad traditions.&nbsp; &nbsp;And they were right.&nbsp; For one thing, Darwins ideas suggested a close relationship between humans and apes, not monkeys.&nbsp; For another thing, it wasn't, as often paraphrased, &quot;man evolved from apes,&quot; but &quot;apes &amp; humans both evolved from a common ancestor.&quot;&nbsp; And a grandfather is only two generations back.&nbsp; It's easy to make factual statements that in no way contradict a theory, yet sound like a witty refutation of it.Hey, it's worked before.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7236391, member: 996"] It was a D-ring binder, but aside from that, yeah, dead-on. Yes, but this is a different point. In 5e, bonuses go from +1 to +5 if you're better than average, but average is 10-11, and better starts at 12 and ends in 20 - in 1e, depending on stat, better gave you a +1 to +4, but better started at 15 (at the earliest) and ended at 18. (STR was wildly aberrant that way, better started at 16 for a +1, but went up to +6 at 18/00) Point being, bonuses were clustered more on the tails of the bell curve. I believe that's supposed to counter your point about the curve not being as flat as it should be, giving too many 18s, but, obviously, you get just as many 18s on 3d6, and a high bonus for those 18s. ::shrug:: Meh, or stats with no impact: 10s. But 5e actually gives everyone in the MM stats, including all the sample NPCs, even the quintessentially-meh Commoner. Apparently, he feels the criticism of 5e came from a different angle, and that you're now arguing the opposite facts being true to push back. It's a different point about a different point, though. Before, you were saying that stats ultimately didn't matter in 5e, because the difference of a point of bonus here or there was dwarfed by class abilities and player skill. Now, you're arguing that the difference of even percentage points matters. But it's a different context. Painting a picture of the population, a world-buidling context, which Hussar doesn't even recognize as a valid context for considering the rules. In the literal sense, though, he is right, you were arguing that the difference between a 10 and a 14 is nothing in 5e, when it's a +2 to a fair range of important things, like saves/attack/damage/DCs/skills and now arguing that the difference between 10 and 14 is huge, when it's just carrying capacity and % chances to bend an iron bar. 1e /is/ terribly relevant to 5e. Amen! Sure, there are good traditions and bad traditions. And they were right. For one thing, Darwins ideas suggested a close relationship between humans and apes, not monkeys. For another thing, it wasn't, as often paraphrased, "man evolved from apes," but "apes & humans both evolved from a common ancestor." And a grandfather is only two generations back. It's easy to make factual statements that in no way contradict a theory, yet sound like a witty refutation of it. Hey, it's worked before. [/QUOTE]

Verification