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: 4707604" data-attributes="member: 82732">LOL.  People have been arguing there's a slippage in the math of 1 per tier for 6 months and now there's a feat that compensates by exactly that amount and is obviously so grossly overpowered in comparison to other feats that you're going to ban it but you can't interpolate that this is the fix?  Ok, I can't teach a rock to sing either.  This is my opinion.  Totally substantiated by the math but I'll accept that you view it as my opinion.Um, define synergies.  CA?  That's part of the game at every level.  If you hit on an 8 at 1st level and hit on an 11 at 25th level you can't say CA makes up for this because CA was available at 1st level also.I posted the exact mechanic for creating monsters.  level + 16 AC for soldiers being an example.  every defense for every monster is based upon some number + level.  That means 1 per level in case your math challenged.  Hardly rhetoric, it's the actual design mechanic used in building monsters. Obviously you can adjust things a little for flavor or to add a strength or a weakness or to offset some other capability but none the less this is the frame work for ALL monsters even if you feel the authors were lying.    this is you attacking me again.  You're mistaken on both counts.  You posted monsters from the book, I posted the actual formula.  Yours is anecdotal in that there are few monsters at 28th or higher level.  Yours is also anecdotal in that you're talking about 1 level and I'm giving you the Math for all of them.  If you pick one level as an example of all levels you always make mistakes.  You of course won't agree to that because you don't understand distributed probability and you're pretty much incapable of admitting you're ever mistaken.   4 out of 17 level one monsters are minions, can I conclude that 23% of monsters are minions?  No because the population sample is small and the cross section is weighted poorly. I feel no sense of player entitlement, this is a silver bullet catch phrase you use to disparage anyone who has a different perspective than your own.  Yours is a poorly thought out argument that displays an utter lack of understanding of play balance or game design.Pretty rhetorical and totally wrong.  The pc's number of options and power of equipment has scaled with level but so has their adversaries.  You think the pc's have gained an advantage because you have a nearly fascist need to control the game down to th tiniest detail but the monsters have scaled in a pretty elegant design that tries pretty effectively to maintain balance across 30 levels with one system.  Now despite all evidence to the contrary your ego has led you to believe that you see a flaw in the designers and nearly everyone elses logic.  You're the ONE person with the right answer.  The "illusion" you call it.  It's mathematically there even if you deny it.  You now try to conjure up a reason that the fact is illusory and introduce the buzzword "synergies".  There are lots of ways to get bonuses to hit.  There are equally as many ways to get penalties.  The foes you face at every level are designed to have powers that are roughly equal to the pc's, thereby creating their own synergies.  The reason the fact that the math slipped matters is not because of entitlement it's because of design and balance.  It was meant to be that way they just made a mistake.  They obviously know it or this feat wouldn't exist, there's really no other logical reason to explain a feat so obviously better than so many others. The math states nothing of the sort.  Where does it state this?  In any event, you're joking right?  As evidence to support your laughable supposition you bring up one of the most controversial and likely broken parts of the game.  Now everyone that disagrees with you is stupid... and only one designer had his hand on the most powerful feat yet introduced?  No one else noticed that this was +3 ATT at level 25?  One guy slipped it in?  really?  and Bill Clinton didn't inhale right?  I notice once again you chose not to discuss how your theory doesn't work for a level 24 party vs a level 27 green dragon.  Hard to account for that with your "synergy" theory.  You've discarded the feat the professional game designers introduced to fix the problem so that the game remains balanced and blame this on entitlement but at level 1 pc's can handle a dragon above their level, apparently you're ok with an encounter the dmg says pc's should be able to handle and totally inline with the encounter design charts is now almost unwinable?</blockquote>

Verification