Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dave Turner" data-source="post: 4283740" data-attributes="member: 12329">Gambler's Fallacy?&nbsp; Tell that to the mathematicians who have analyzed skill challenge system.&nbsp; Your comment strikes me as perversely uninformed at best.As for the OP, I'd be much more inclined to side with you if you didn't make mistakes regarding the usefulness of some of the powers you list.&nbsp; For example, the text of Beguiler's Tongue actually reads:&quot;You gain a +5 power bonus to your NEXT Bluff, Diplomacy, or Intimidate check during this encounter.&quot;It's hardly the encounter-long powerhouse you suggest:Furthermore, Good Omens is a paragon path ability for a cleric.&nbsp; If we assume that paragon paths will be chosen in equal numbers, only 1/4 of the clerics being played will choose to be a Divine Oracle, the path which gives the Good Omens power.&nbsp; Is every cleric playing the game somehow obliged to pick the Divine Oracle paragon path just so that the math on a vanilla skill challenge, an innovative rules system championed by the developers, will work out?&nbsp; Maybe we can merely suggest that at least one PC in every party must multiclass into Divine Oracle?Must every DM hand out the two head slot items you mentioned just so that WotC's flawed math can be compensated for?&nbsp; Why does the DM have to dig the PCs out of a mathematical hole in the first place?Substantive criticism of the skill challenge systems detractors can't be based solely on flipping through the PHB, cherry-picking powers which have some bare relationship to enhancing skill bonuses.&nbsp; I think that your core criticism is worth addressing: did the critics who ran the numbers on the skill challenge system take Power and Item bonuses into account?&nbsp; Hopefully one of them will be along to answer that question.&nbsp; The details in your argument, on the other hand, require much more work on your part.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dave Turner, post: 4283740, member: 12329"] Gambler's Fallacy? Tell that to the mathematicians who have analyzed skill challenge system. Your comment strikes me as perversely uninformed at best. As for the OP, I'd be much more inclined to side with you if you didn't make mistakes regarding the usefulness of some of the powers you list. For example, the text of Beguiler's Tongue actually reads: "You gain a +5 power bonus to your [b]NEXT[/b] Bluff, Diplomacy, or Intimidate check during this encounter." It's hardly the encounter-long powerhouse you suggest: Furthermore, Good Omens is a [b]paragon path[/b] ability for a cleric. If we assume that paragon paths will be chosen in equal numbers, only 1/4 of the clerics being played will choose to be a Divine Oracle, the path which gives the Good Omens power. Is every cleric playing the game somehow obliged to pick the Divine Oracle paragon path just so that the math on a vanilla skill challenge, an innovative rules system championed by the developers, will work out? Maybe we can merely suggest that at least one PC in every party must multiclass into Divine Oracle? Must every DM hand out the two head slot items you mentioned just so that WotC's flawed math can be compensated for? Why does the DM have to dig the PCs out of a mathematical hole in the first place? Substantive criticism of the skill challenge systems detractors can't be based solely on flipping through the PHB, cherry-picking powers which have some bare relationship to enhancing skill bonuses. I think that your core criticism is worth addressing: did the critics who ran the numbers on the skill challenge system take Power and Item bonuses into account? Hopefully one of them will be along to answer that question. The details in your argument, on the other hand, require much more work on your part. [/QUOTE]

Verification