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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AngryPurpleCyclops" data-source="post: 4705178" data-attributes="member: 82732">This is another mischaracterization.  What choice do people have currently?  They can play or not play.  The satisfaction example assumes you know there mental state which is ludicrous.  A lot of people when looking at the numbers have expressed dissatisfaction with the gradual decline in pc average effectiveness.  Where are people arguing they're satisfied and the math is already correct?  They're not because everyone already knows there was a flaw in the design.  Two if you count gradual erosion of one NAD.soldiers are tougher on average than brutes but brutes do more damage and have more hit points which can matter. makes them less impacted by automatic damage for instance.  You keep arguing the encounters are poorly designed but avoid the corollary that it's possibly your character design that's flawed.You can easily do that, you're flat out wrong because I've been in two encounters with L+7 monsters and come out on top.  I do feel that soldiers push the limit here and the real design flaw is under costing soldiers exp wise. No it's not.  The monsters with higher defenses also have higher attack values, higher hit points and more damage on average.  You're taking one facet and repairing it in a backwards manner then ignoring all the collateral changes you have made.    What you "want" is semi irrelevant to the thread.  the thread is talking about the bad mechanic of introducing this feat as a defacto fix for an earlier design error.  So rather than fix the math error with an elegant errata to the level advancement table adding +1 to all ATT's at level 5-15-25 you're now choosing to experiment with a host of other already play tested options AND still leave the math error in play.  Nice solution.  Even with your fix PC's get progressively less able to hit.  No matter what you limit the maximum monster level to, PC's will still experience the reduction in efficiency.  It's incremental.  Nonsense is making irrelevant analogies and offering no support.  You're making anecdotal arguments that have no relevance.  People rarely complain about the lack of flying dinosaurs at the zoo because they don't exist.  Why would people be complaining about a +1 to hit they couldn't acquire?  People were in fact complaining about the math progression.  Is you needing a 13 to hit when other players need a 10 at level 25 comparatively ok?  Among other things you totally ignore that this feat which is better than 95% of the feats initially scales like no other.  do you really have a point here?  are you really not seeing that this is errata disguised as a feat?Pot calling the kettle?  Talk about Ironic. You're being ridiculous. Please don't ever lump me in with you, I would be ashamed of myself if I was posting so many straw man arguments.  You can't point to a single point where I don't supply substance to make my points.  You don't even answer half the questions that are posed and you fail to refute ANYTHING people are saying you just blather on blindly supposing your position is correct with out actually defending it.  You just keep blaming the DM, and now the game designers and encounter designs, and everyone but yourself.  Now you're purporting to change a major section of the game rather than issue errata about +1 to hit (which obviously based upon this feat the people at WotC already know is a problem).  These are <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact" target="_blank">FACTS</a>:The game works if you build pc's that are close to optimum.  There's a mathematical slide towards decreasing effectiveness (in ATT) at higher levels by 1 per tier.There's a decreasing effectiveness of at least one NAD at higher levels by probably 2 per tier.   This feat erases the decline in attack values at the cost of one feat.PC's are currently expected to handle monsters up to 7 levels above their own.(L+7)PC's are expected to handle encounters max valued at their level +4 (n+4)If you build a sub optimal build you'll perform less well in combat the majority of the time.  If this gap is too large it will have a progressively more noticeable affect and a more profound chance to cause a negative outcome (i.e. character death)None of this is the DM's fault.Please point to the statement I've made here that's not factual.</blockquote>

Verification