Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Wulf Ratbane" data-source="post: 1170172" data-attributes="member: 94">Just because they are set arbitrarily does not mean they are outside the design parameters. Don't jump to conclusions. Allow me to quote from the v3 document:It's not pedantic, and they are extremely relevant. It's easily solved-- as he does below: +0.1 for every point.This is a fallacy that undermines the trust in the system.Take two 1st level fighters. One has an average ability score array-- all 10's and 11's.The other has all 18's. UK insists that they are both CR1. That is clearly not the case. The second fighter is +4 to hit, +4 to damage, +4 to AC, +4 Initiative, +4 hp's, +4 skill points, and +2 to Reflex, Fort, and Will saves.It's not pedantic at all to note the distinction between these two characters. The "super stat" character clearly has a higher effective level than the first. This is relevant.A DM needs to know the CR of the foes he throws at his players, and if his players have stats that are above average, he'll also very quickly find that encounters that are balanced for average ability scores are too easy for the "super stat" characters. I know. I've seen it in my own campaigns, both as a player and a DM. But they should be.What I am "all excited" about is that UK is doing himself a disservice with this disclaimer and this insistence that ability scores don't matter. I'm not attacking UK's system-- I am very excited about it, it's awesome deconstructive design work. I am simply saying it could be better, and more forcefully defended, if he didn't insist on a clearly fallacious premise.The solution is right there, he's got it-- he just needs to stand behind it, rather than dismissing its relevance.Wulf</blockquote>

Verification