Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 5531032" data-attributes="member: 22424">If you stack your stat-16, prof+2, no Expertise character up against the stat-18, prof+4, Expertise character, that's much more than a 5% difference.Here's the rub: if everyone at the table is of the same mind (either they all care about the math, or none of them do), then everything will be fine. But groups tend not to be homogenous, and if you put a player who doesn't care together with a player who does, then the big disparities start to become apparent.Unfortunately, those big disparities can cause serious problems. Over the course of the campaign, it is likely that the optimised character will come to dominate the game. This has two likely effects: the player with the weaker character may become frustrated at being forever outshone, or the player with the stronger character may become frustrated at forever 'carrying' the others (or both). This really can't be a good thing.That's why &quot;fixing the math&quot; is important. For the players who don't care, it doesn't matter if it's 'right' or 'wrong' - they don't care. But for the players who do care, it does matter.Some system mastery options are a good thing. But too many can create big imbalances between characters, to the detriment of the game. And 'must have' feats are a very bad thing, especially if they're not clearly flagged as such. (Not to mention, obvious 'must have' feats aren't exactly system mastery.)4e did well in its initial efforts to &quot;fix the math&quot;. When problems were found, the online tools gave WotC the scope to patch the underlying assumptions, had WotC chosen to do so. (Essentials certainly did.) That they instead decided to apply a patch, in the form of 'must have' feats, was a big mistake.YMMV, of course.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="delericho, post: 5531032, member: 22424"] If you stack your stat-16, prof+2, no Expertise character up against the stat-18, prof+4, Expertise character, that's much more than a 5% difference. Here's the rub: if everyone at the table is of the same mind (either they [i]all[/i] care about the math, or [i]none[/i] of them do), then everything will be fine. But groups tend not to be homogenous, and if you put a player who doesn't care together with a player who does, then the big disparities start to become apparent. Unfortunately, those big disparities can cause serious problems. Over the course of the campaign, it is likely that the optimised character will come to dominate the game. This has two likely effects: the player with the weaker character may become frustrated at being forever outshone, or the player with the stronger character may become frustrated at forever 'carrying' the others (or both). This really can't be a good thing. That's why "fixing the math" is important. For the players who don't care, it doesn't matter if it's 'right' or 'wrong' - they don't care. But for the players who [i]do[/i] care, it does matter. [i]Some[/i] system mastery options are a good thing. But too many can create big imbalances between characters, to the detriment of the game. And 'must have' feats are a very bad thing, especially if they're not clearly flagged as such. (Not to mention, obvious 'must have' feats aren't exactly system mastery.) 4e did well in its initial efforts to "fix the math". When problems were found, the online tools gave WotC the scope to patch the underlying assumptions, had WotC chosen to do so. (Essentials certainly did.) That they instead decided to apply a patch, in the form of 'must have' feats, was a big mistake. YMMV, of course. [/QUOTE]

Verification