Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dave Turner" data-source="post: 4284762" data-attributes="member: 12329">But this argument cuts against the RAW skill challenge just as easily.&nbsp; Has the RAW skill challenge been analyzed over “months by dozens of different ppl”?&nbsp; It hardly seems likely that WotC had a dozens of mathematicians crunching numbers over months.&nbsp; I have no first-hand knowledge of how the RAW skill challenge system was designed.&nbsp; This might be how they did it.&nbsp; But I think it’s fair to say that most would be surprised if this were the case.&nbsp; You shouldn’t be placing your confidence in your “gut”.&nbsp; Your gut, in this case, is the RAW skill challenge.&nbsp; The mathematicians in the math thread have repeatedly stated that they’re using approximations in their calculations.&nbsp; More importantly, they are using approximations which favor the characters.&nbsp; The analysis goes out of its way to assume that there might be a few positive modifiers out there that the author hasn’t thought of, but will extend to the characters for the sake of being fair to the RAW.&nbsp; The numbers still don’t seem to work.&nbsp; I agree with you that there’s no reason to declare a final victory for the RAW’s critics, but it’s foolish to dismiss them out of hand simply because they haven’t had a few months to nail down all the details.&nbsp; The preliminary general conclusion, to a reasonable first degree of approximation, indicates a serious mathematical problem.&nbsp; It strikes me as needlessly closed-minded to discount it for the reasons you state.Eldorian supports the notion that the math thread’s analysis was bending over backwards to accommodate its lack of rigorous analysis of the RAW:Even after building in a significant advantage for the characters, the math still seems flawed.&nbsp; Reflexively dismissing their results seems short-sighted.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dave Turner, post: 4284762, member: 12329"] But this argument cuts against the RAW skill challenge just as easily. Has the RAW skill challenge been analyzed over “months by dozens of different ppl”? It hardly seems likely that WotC had a dozens of mathematicians crunching numbers over months. I have no first-hand knowledge of how the RAW skill challenge system was designed. This might be how they did it. But I think it’s fair to say that most would be surprised if this were the case. You shouldn’t be placing your confidence in your “gut”. Your gut, in this case, is the RAW skill challenge. The mathematicians in the math thread have repeatedly stated that they’re using approximations in their calculations. More importantly, they are using approximations which [i]favor the characters[/i]. The analysis goes out of its way to assume that there might be a few positive modifiers out there that the author hasn’t thought of, but will extend to the characters for the sake of being fair to the RAW. The numbers [i]still don’t seem to work[/i]. I agree with you that there’s no reason to declare a final victory for the RAW’s critics, but it’s foolish to dismiss them out of hand simply because they haven’t had a few months to nail down all the details. The preliminary general conclusion, to a reasonable first degree of approximation, indicates a serious mathematical problem. It strikes me as needlessly closed-minded to discount it for the reasons you state. Eldorian supports the notion that the math thread’s analysis was bending over backwards to accommodate its lack of rigorous analysis of the RAW: Even after building in a significant advantage for the characters, the math still seems flawed. Reflexively dismissing their results seems short-sighted. [/QUOTE]

Verification