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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="LurkAway" data-source="post: 5743578" data-attributes="member: 6685059">Although it's very difficult to be completely off the radar during the entire course of adventuring, I'd disagree that epicness is directly correlated with a sort of universal prominence. You don't have to be a secretive hermit or a lone wolf -- you could just adventure for a few years in a faraway remote wilderness, and then return to a civilization that treats you like any other schmuck or a just another dangerous looking schmuck like any other dangerous looking schmuck -- a very common narrative trope. To say that epic confers the same flat absolute universal bonus in all circumstances and all locations regardless of context is a gross simplification.And then scale back to Paragon level, which still has a level-correlated bonus to diplomacy, but without the epicness of Epic, and you still have an abstraction that is a gross simplification without context.This is probably the crux of the matter. You will come up with "whatever" to support the existing rule and be satisfied with the conformed explanation, I guess. If the rule was different, if it wasn't a flat level-based bonus to diplomacy, you'd swing with that too, I'd guess. Whereas others feel that some narratives are more compelling and believable than others, absent the rule.So if you had a hermit who lived in remote wilderness, a lone wolf who avoides social interactions, a treasure hunter who is famous in Timbuktoo and completely unknown in Kansas, and super-famous Hercules whose tales are widely known across the lands, you'll come up with whatever fiction to support the abstraction of their equal same level bonuse to diplomacy. I consider those 4 characters and the rule clearly doesn't fit in my mind, but I don't feel that I'm biased or obligated towards making it fit either.</blockquote>

Verification