Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dave Turner" data-source="post: 4284542" data-attributes="member: 12329">You'll note that the first response in this thread by person who initiated the math thread, Stalker0, does seem to care about your point.&nbsp; He admitted that it was something he should have looked at closer and he promised that he would.&nbsp; As anyone who read further than the first page in the math thread knows, Stalker0 was paying attention to the math thread.&nbsp; His responses later in the thread show this.&nbsp; Since we know that Stalker0 is receptive to the criticism you raised (based on his response in this thread), then it doesn't seem right to suggest that no one would have cared if your point was raised in the math thread.&nbsp; We can't expect everyone in the thread to note or comment on your point, since that's the nature of Internet discussion threads.&nbsp; Not every comment or point raised is subsequently discussed by all participants.&nbsp; But it seems likely that Stalker0 would have noticed it and cared.&nbsp; This shows that your dismissal of the thread as valueless was, at best, premature.Can you point to an instance in the math thread in which your point about various PC bonuses was raised and subsequently ignored by everyone?&nbsp; Naturally, your example should be restricted to posts that predate your criticism in this thread.Should 4e also have rules that award more XP if players can come up with enough ways to spin &quot;I hit him with my sword&quot; that aren't keyed off a power's flavor text?Alternatively, should 4e have rules that award more XP if players find new ways of using attack actions that go beyond &quot;I attack my opponent&quot;?But this is a design goal that seems to cut against the grain of 4e.&nbsp; WotC seems intent on avoiding large gulfs in effectiveness between characters.&nbsp; It's a variation of the problem in which the wizard overshadows the rogue's strengths with spells like Knock or Invisibility.&nbsp; The old 3e notion that &quot;we've got to have a cleric in order to function as a party&quot; is echoed in the 4e notion that &quot;we've got to have a skill monkey to succeed in any skill challenge.&quot;In the math thread, there was an anecdotal story about a skill challenge in which the players, fearing failure, all resorted to Aid Another actions in support of the one character who had a fighting chance at making a skill check.&nbsp; The situation was described as unsatisfying because most of the party was reduced to secondary role.&nbsp; The &quot;secondary&quot; characters weren't actually &quot;winning&quot; the challenge by providing successes towards the party's goal.&nbsp; They were just chipping in so that one character got the actual successes in the challenge and, by extension, the glory.&nbsp; Why shouldn't we prefer a system in which a character who focuses on skill excellence is rewarded, but those who don't still have a more than adequate chance of succeeding on a skill check?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dave Turner, post: 4284542, member: 12329"] You'll note that the first response in this thread by person who initiated the math thread, Stalker0, does seem to care about your point. He admitted that it was something he should have looked at closer and he promised that he would. As anyone who read further than the first page in the math thread knows, Stalker0 was paying attention to the math thread. His responses later in the thread show this. Since we know that Stalker0 is receptive to the criticism you raised (based on his response in this thread), then it doesn't seem right to suggest that no one would have cared if your point was raised in the math thread. We can't expect everyone in the thread to note or comment on your point, since that's the nature of Internet discussion threads. Not every comment or point raised is subsequently discussed by all participants. But it seems likely that Stalker0 would have noticed it and cared. This shows that your dismissal of the thread as valueless was, at best, premature. Can you point to an instance in the math thread in which your point about various PC bonuses was raised and subsequently ignored by everyone? Naturally, your example should be restricted to posts that predate your criticism in this thread. Should 4e also have rules that award more XP if players can come up with enough ways to spin "I hit him with my sword" that aren't keyed off a power's flavor text? Alternatively, should 4e have rules that award more XP if players find new ways of using attack actions that go beyond "I attack my opponent"? But this is a design goal that seems to cut against the grain of 4e. WotC seems intent on avoiding large gulfs in effectiveness between characters. It's a variation of the problem in which the wizard overshadows the rogue's strengths with spells like Knock or Invisibility. The old 3e notion that "we've got to have a cleric in order to function as a party" is echoed in the 4e notion that "we've got to have a skill monkey to succeed in any skill challenge." In the math thread, there was an anecdotal story about a skill challenge in which the players, fearing failure, all resorted to Aid Another actions in support of the one character who had a fighting chance at making a skill check. The situation was described as unsatisfying because most of the party was reduced to secondary role. The "secondary" characters weren't actually "winning" the challenge by providing successes towards the party's goal. They were just chipping in so that one character got the actual successes in the challenge and, by extension, the glory. Why shouldn't we prefer a system in which a character who focuses on skill excellence is rewarded, but those who don't still have a more than adequate chance of succeeding on a skill check? [/QUOTE]

Verification