Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TwinBahamut" data-source="post: 4283219" data-attributes="member: 32536">That was my point. All the math and interpretations of books aside, the conclusions made by some people in this thread have two logical results: either several months of detailed design and playtesting of one of the most innovative and important mechanical elements of 4E is obviously flawed, or the people making conclusions are grossly misinterpreting things.I will be blunt here. It is a LOT easier for me to believe that a few fans running the numbers for fun have made a mistake than professional game developers who devoted a lot of energy making a product they intend to sell.Considering that I know there are skilled mathematicians at WotC (pretty much the entire development team exists for this one purpose), there is no way to argue that this is a matter of fans knowing more about math than the WotC guys (particularly since the math behind this is so simple).I don't have the 4E books, so I can't look at the rules and numbers myself, but I am going to say that all of the people making bold claims about WotC's failings should take a minute to re-evaluate their assumptions and try to interpret the RAW in a different light. Instead of interpreting the text as you think it is supposed to be read and reaching a broken result, try to find a way to get a good result out of the math without changing much and see how that affects the interpretation of the text. If nothing else, it is more constructive and useful to your fellow gamers to see how to modify the RAW to get a good result without scrapping the whole system and creating a new one from scratch.That is one reason I am more inclined to ditch the +5 that is being mentioned here, simply because removing it creates a reasonable result. Regardless of whether or not some line of rules text implies it should be included or not, if it works without the +5, then that is probably the way it was intended to be done. However, if there is some other way to modify the results, then those should be factored in as well. Morrus mentioned something about racial stats, skill kits, small boosts (like the Elf's boost to team Perception), and such.Also, another thing to consider is that, since there are rules for Easy checks, then there must be some way for a player to take advantage of that, even for just a single check in a whole challenge. Would a mix of Easy, Normal, and Hard checks affect the math, compared to nothing but Normal checks? It seems like it would affect it greatly, especially for very complex challenges, since the Easy or Hard modifier might push the success rate above or below the line where added complexity (and thus the law of large numbers) favors or hurts the PCs, and the mix would do so in ways the current models might not predict.</blockquote>

Verification