Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DracoSuave" data-source="post: 4743410" data-attributes="member: 71571">It isn't necessary to do a thurough analysis.  But it helps if you're making a point that mathematical computations are broken if you actually mathematicly prove the brokenness.  Otherwise you're only theorizing, and have no stand point to make a statement as tho it were fact.Without mathematical proof, you merely have opinion.No, you can't.  You can rationally come up with the conclusion that developers wanted to produce epic versions of the Lighting Reflexes-style feats, either by increasing the bonus given, or spreading the bonus out amongst all three NADs.  Without some form of mathematical evidence that the numbers don't work, you cannot make a statement that the feats prove the brokenness of the math with any real authority.  (and no, to-hit bonus anayisis is not sufficent evidence to mount a proof that the system is broken; This requires either a rigorous mathematical examination of all pertinent variables, or observation of a sample of test cases in order to prove a trend.)We don't all agree, and saying so is an incorrect statement that is designed to exclude those that disagree with you from the argument.  It is no more valid than me saying 'We all agree that the math isn't broken.'  What is true is that I see a thread of some people declaring them broken, and other people saying that high level play isn't just decided by to-hit bonuses and that it's a lot more complicated than that.  Fact is, these feats already existed in 3rd edition and functioned -exactly the same.-  The only difference is that you got them earlier.When I start seeing errata to how to design monsters and assign defenses, and errata to problematic monsters with high attack bonuses, that's when I can believe the 'math is borked and wizards knows it' conspiracy.Edit: Like KarisDad said:</blockquote>[/QUOTE]

Verification