Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="TwinBahamut" data-source="post: 4282096" data-attributes="member: 32536">This thread is rather depressing...People keep going around saying essentially &quot;our quick five-minute analysis is perfect, so obviously WotC's several months of detailed design and playtesting was a total joke&quot;. Meanwhile, attempts to show that the core assumptions of the five-minute analysis might be flawed (the +5 rule) are shot down without detailed examination.In other words, people in this thread are more eager to prove that WotC screwed up than try to see how the rules may actually work and how they can actually work with a different interpretation of the text.If you are supposed to add +5 to everything on the chart, then why wasn't the +5 already added into the chart in the first place? That would be far more consistent with 4E's design, after all. The entire point is to remove the need for the DM to do a lot of work in order to get a proper result. Unless you can resolve that contradiction, then the OP's core assumptions are demonstrably false, meaning his conclusion is false.It is probably better to assume that seeming exceptions to the general rule that there is a 70% or so success rate should be treated as just that: exceptions, not indicators of a hidden general rule.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="TwinBahamut, post: 4282096, member: 32536"] This thread is rather depressing... People keep going around saying essentially "our quick five-minute analysis is [i]perfect[/i], so obviously WotC's several months of detailed design and playtesting was a total joke". Meanwhile, attempts to show that the core assumptions of the five-minute analysis might be flawed (the +5 rule) are shot down without detailed examination. In other words, people in this thread are more eager to prove that WotC screwed up than try to see how the rules may actually work and how they can actually work with a different interpretation of the text. If you are supposed to add +5 to everything on the chart, then why wasn't the +5 already added into the chart in the first place? That would be far more consistent with 4E's design, after all. The entire point is to remove the need for the DM to do a lot of work in order to get a proper result. Unless you can resolve that contradiction, then the OP's core assumptions are demonstrably false, meaning his conclusion is false. It is probably better to assume that seeming exceptions to the general rule that there is a 70% or so success rate should be treated as just that: [i]exceptions[/i], not indicators of a hidden general rule. [/QUOTE]

Verification