Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="NotAYakk" data-source="post: 8833466" data-attributes="member: 72555">He reproduced much of the WotC design with a bunch of errors.&nbsp; Those errors are usually bounded by 25% ish.The errors he gets include:1. Spellcasters aren't worth the same XP as other classes.2. Classes with rest-based resources are worth less XP than other classes.3. Classes with HP-boosting resources are worth more XP than other classes.4. Encounters with lots of creatures assume a huge amount of AOE damage.5. The XP values used seem to over-value lower level monsters compared to higher level monsters6. The spell-building guidelines reflect actual spells used by PCs.7. PCs only use spells for dealing damage.I can't help but notice that those errors are all consistent with the warped conclusions.If he is systematically undervaluing rest resources and spell slots, then suddenly wizards aren't the weakest class XP-budget wise.If lower level monsters higher than expected XP value (compared to higher level monsters) is multiplied with encounter size multipliers, you'll see that the real encounter size multiplier is larger; which no longer requires unreasonably large amounts of AOE damage.If real spells are used, the value of spell slots goes up compared to &quot;casting a cantrip&quot;.&nbsp; Making the resources&nbsp; matter more.I mean, the work is really well done.&nbsp; I'm just saying drawing conclusions from an analysis that has known errors and not checking &quot;are those errors what is leading to this quirky conclusion&quot; is a bad plan.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="NotAYakk, post: 8833466, member: 72555"] He reproduced much of the WotC design with a bunch of errors. Those errors are usually bounded by 25% ish. The errors he gets include: 1. Spellcasters aren't worth the same XP as other classes. 2. Classes with rest-based resources are worth less XP than other classes. 3. Classes with HP-boosting resources are worth more XP than other classes. 4. Encounters with lots of creatures assume a huge amount of AOE damage. 5. The XP values used seem to over-value lower level monsters compared to higher level monsters 6. The spell-building guidelines reflect actual spells used by PCs. 7. PCs only use spells for dealing damage. I can't help but notice that those errors are all consistent with the warped conclusions. If he is systematically undervaluing rest resources and spell slots, then suddenly wizards aren't the weakest class XP-budget wise. If lower level monsters higher than expected XP value (compared to higher level monsters) is multiplied with encounter size multipliers, you'll see that the real encounter size multiplier is larger; which no longer requires unreasonably large amounts of AOE damage. If real spells are used, the value of spell slots goes up compared to "casting a cantrip". Making the resources matter more. I mean, the work is really well done. I'm just saying drawing conclusions from an analysis that has known errors and not checking "are those errors what is leading to this quirky conclusion" is a bad plan. [/QUOTE]

Verification