Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="tetrasodium" data-source="post: 9258842" data-attributes="member: 93670">&quot;You were pretty light on specifics there.&nbsp; and here you are getting downright circular Detailing specifics would look like this:<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">3.x went to unified attribute bonuses rather than pre-3.x style attribute specific tables each with one off bonuses at non-unified values was good because: the unique values for each thing attached to six different attributes&nbsp; were too varied to remember them with any reliability rather than needing to consult the book every time one was needed.<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">However the implementation was bad because: the particulars of the implementation itself created new problems in the way narrowing the deadzone of +0 between roughly 6 &amp; 15 put extreme pressure&nbsp; on players to perfectly arrange their attributes and forced the GM to be rather strict about anything boosting PC attributers.</li>
</ul></li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">When 3.x went from roll low is good to roll high in order to avoid the confusion some people had when a +1 weapon would reduce your roll by 1☆.<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">However the implementation was bad because: Now players who were needed to spend game time calculating every attack roll they ever made due to 3.x also getting rid of the concept of&nbsp; Players having a precalculated&nbsp; 
[spoiler=&quot;attack roll table&quot;] 
[ATTACH=full]345427[/ATTACH] 
Courtesy of google image search 
[/spoiler] 
in addition to getting rid of the character sheet section for [spoiler=&quot;precalculated weapon specific attack roll range&quot;] 
[ATTACH=full]345428[/ATTACH]Courtesy of google image search 
[/spoiler]</li>
</ul></li>
</ul>Without specifics you either rely on circular &quot;simple = good so any simplification is unquestionably good&quot; type reasoning or you must rely on the reader to assume the reason for your support of a particular simplification☆ or however someone wanted to phrase it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="tetrasodium, post: 9258842, member: 93670"] "You were pretty light on specifics there. and here you are getting downright circular Detailing [I]specifics[/I] would look like this: [LIST] [*]3.x went to unified attribute bonuses rather than pre-3.x style attribute specific tables each with one off bonuses at non-unified values w[B]as good because: [/B]the unique values for each thing attached to six different attributes were too varied to remember them with any reliability rather than needing to consult the book every time one was needed. [LIST] [*][B]However the implementation was bad because:[/B] the particulars of the implementation itself created new problems in the way narrowing the deadzone of +0 between roughly 6 & 15 put extreme pressure on players to perfectly arrange their attributes and forced the GM to be rather strict about anything boosting PC attributers. [/LIST] [*]When 3.x went from roll low is good to roll high in order to avoid the confusion some people had when a +1 weapon would reduce your roll by 1☆. [LIST] [*][B]However the implementation was bad because:[/B] Now players who were needed to spend game time calculating every attack roll they ever made due to 3.x [I]also[/I] getting rid of the concept of Players having a precalculated [spoiler="attack roll table"] [ATTACH type="full"]345427[/ATTACH] Courtesy of google image search [/spoiler] in addition to getting rid of the character sheet section for [spoiler="precalculated weapon specific attack roll range"] [ATTACH type="full"]345428[/ATTACH]Courtesy of google image search [/spoiler] [/LIST] [/LIST] Without specifics you either rely on circular "simple = good so [I]any[/I] simplification is unquestionably good" type reasoning or you must rely on the reader to assume the reason for your support of a particular simplification ☆ or however someone wanted to phrase it. [/QUOTE]

Verification