Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TwinBahamut" data-source="post: 4284901" data-attributes="member: 32536">I don't doubt the mathematical skill of the people involved in this thread, but the gap in time and energy spent on this problem between people like the OP and the guys at WotC is still immense. More importantly, most of the people here are just learning the rules, and may not fully understand the intricacies of the rules yet.Anyways, I understand that things that are easier to believe are not necessarily true, but that doesn't change the fact that I am still not convinced the system by the RAW is broken. I have read through all the math laid out in this thread, and it is all been done with certain assumptions beyond the agreed-upon RAW.Now you are simply misunderstanding what I was saying.I know that the things I mentioned are in the system as written. That is why I mentioned them in the first place. The problem is that they are not being accounted for in the OP's "proof" of the flaw in the system as written. Go back and look at the original "proof" yourself. It specifically says that it assumes things like a particular skill modifier (based only on skill training and a high stat, nothing else) and nothing but normal checks (not the easy and hard check that the DM ay throw in).I don't think it is unreasonable to ask a mathematician to go through additional calculations with different reasonable assumptions in order to see how it affects the result. That is all I did. After all, having a greater variety of modifiers and a mix of easy, normal, and hard checks is something that is going to be closer to actual play experience than the OP's starting assumptions.Anyways, all I have done is reference information made freely available in this thread, so I don't see why my lack of knowledge of the contents of the books affects my points. It merely limits my ability to do this all myself. I would run the calculations myself if I could.I am not sure you do. I apologize if I was a bit unclear earlier. I was posting late at night right before going to sleep, so I may have been incoherent.I never said there was an easy fix, merely that the system may work in unexpected ways. In fact, the RAW may only work under particular assumptions not outlined in the book itself (which would be serious problem with the books). I think this thread would be better suited trying to see if such assumptions exist (so they could enlighten people who want to run the game), rather than assume they don't exist and cast the whole system aside.Enough information about the system is mentioned right here in this thread to make what few points I have made. All I am doing is trying to exercise a bit of skepticism in an attempt to dissuade a potentially flawed hasty conclusion.What assumptions do you mean? The assumptions I asked people to re-evaluate were things like "every check will be a Normal check" and "the bonus for level 1 characters will be +9". Since I have not put forward a mathematical model myself, I have not made any assumptions for that model.I certainly didn't intend any kind of hostile or belittling tone, I can assure you that. However, I will say that some of your implications that I have no right to comment without owning the books and that I am somehow a rude and terrible person for being a little skeptical and asking someone to attempt a set of mathematical calculations under different conditions were indeed offensive.</blockquote>

Verification