Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="billd91" data-source="post: 7140692" data-attributes="member: 3400">No. No it doesn't. It maximizes the terms of the difference to make a stronger impression. Putting it in terms of percentage increase over the lower value skews the impression when divorced of the objective values. Using the percentage terms, you can't tell if that's a difference of 1, 2, 50, or 100 or what that means to the world around the characters but it sure sounds big, doesn't it? Once we know we're playing 5e and we're looking at applying those damage values against monsters with hit points that will quickly range into the dozens, we can pretty much see that a +2 difference isn't a particularly big deal.And it gets hinkier when you realize that the percentage increase will vary depending on the base expected damage you use. Good think Oofta wasn't using unarmed combat to show off the difference. With an expected damage from the weapon equal to 1, Tik and Tok's strength becomes a larger component of the calculation, skewing the percentage difference in damage even higher, despite the absolute difference being the same. Use greatswords with their larger expected damage (7) and you'll see that percentage difference cut down substantially compared to unarmed combat, again despite the absolute difference being the same. That's one of the problems with the subjective POV - it varies depending on the factors going into the perspective. To put things in other terms - I'm sure Carrie Fisher seemed pretty tall to her costars Kenny Baker and Warwick Davis. But don't expect Peter Mayhew to agree.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="billd91, post: 7140692, member: 3400"] No. No it doesn't. It maximizes the terms of the difference to make a stronger impression. Putting it in terms of percentage increase over the lower value skews the impression when divorced of the objective values. Using the percentage terms, you can't tell if that's a difference of 1, 2, 50, or 100 or what that means to the world around the characters but it sure sounds big, doesn't it? Once we know we're playing 5e and we're looking at applying those damage values against monsters with hit points that will quickly range into the dozens, we can pretty much see that a +2 difference isn't a particularly big deal. And it gets hinkier when you realize that the percentage increase will vary depending on the base expected damage you use. Good think Oofta wasn't using unarmed combat to show off the difference. With an expected damage from the weapon equal to 1, Tik and Tok's strength becomes a larger component of the calculation, skewing the percentage difference in damage even higher, despite the absolute difference being the same. Use greatswords with their larger expected damage (7) and you'll see that percentage difference cut down substantially compared to unarmed combat, again despite the absolute difference being the same. That's one of the problems with the subjective POV - it varies depending on the factors going into the perspective. To put things in other terms - I'm sure Carrie Fisher seemed pretty tall to her costars Kenny Baker and Warwick Davis. But don't expect Peter Mayhew to agree. [/QUOTE]

Verification