Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Windjammer" data-source="post: 5118616" data-attributes="member: 60075">IIRC, the 'Rich Baker houserule' which you state here existed at the WotC offices from June 2008 on. Mike Mearls references it in a discussion <a href="http://kotgl.blogspot.com/2010/01/swinginess-and-balance.html" target="_blank">on his blog</a> - in reply to this question:Emphasis added. Here's Mike's response:I understand he's saying &quot;people at R&amp;D use&quot; this houserule. And then there's the contentious claim that when R&amp;D first explained to the public how &quot;[W]&quot; worked in the preview article on paladin smites (see <a href="http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/drdd/20071128" target="_blank">here</a>), they implied that while the number of dice which attaches with the [W] doesn't scale with level (it's still 2 for a level 2 or level 22 encounter power), the bonus damage which attaches to the [W] scales with level. If that is true, then they playtested at one point a rules version which basically pre-empts all the later fixes with weapon expertise and so on. I'm not sure it is true, but when key folks at R&amp;D start to mathematically fix the damage output from day 1 the indication is that they preferred an earlier version.So, in short, WotC isn't officially acknowledging this because the opinion at WotC R&amp;D is apparently divided (as it is in the fanbase). Some developers like Baker have houseruled it from day 1 and/or switched back to an earlier version of the rules. Others, like Mearls, do so rarely implement that rule that (as per the quote above) they have difficulty to even recall it correctly.Finally, you can be sure that when the 5E promo videos show up that Grind is going to be the number 1 target of R&amp;D mockery. HUGE issues with a game are always delegated to 'this calls for an edition overhaul!!! 11!!&quot;.So I've bookmarked this thread. This is SO going to come up when that promo video is released to wide acclaim by the previous 4E &quot;grind? no issue!&quot; loyalists here.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Windjammer, post: 5118616, member: 60075"] IIRC, the 'Rich Baker houserule' which you state here existed at the WotC offices from June 2008 on. Mike Mearls references it in a discussion [URL="http://kotgl.blogspot.com/2010/01/swinginess-and-balance.html"]on his blog[/URL] - in reply to this question: Emphasis added. Here's Mike's response: I understand he's saying "people[B] at R&D [/B]use" this houserule. And then there's the contentious claim that when R&D first explained to the public how "[W]" worked in the preview article on paladin smites (see [URL="http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/drdd/20071128"]here[/URL]), they implied that while the number of dice which attaches with the [W] doesn't scale with level (it's still 2 for a level 2 or level 22 encounter power), the bonus damage which attaches to the [W][I] scales with level[/I]. If that is true, then they playtested at one point a rules version which basically pre-empts all the later fixes with weapon expertise and so on. I'm not sure it is true, but when key folks at R&D start to mathematically fix the damage output from day 1 the indication is that they preferred an earlier version. So, in short, WotC isn't officially acknowledging this because the opinion at WotC R&D is apparently divided (as it is in the fanbase). Some developers like Baker have houseruled it from day 1 and/or switched back to an earlier version of the rules. Others, like Mearls, do so rarely implement that rule that (as per the quote above) they have difficulty to even recall it correctly. Finally, you can be sure that when the 5E promo videos show up that Grind is going to be the number 1 target of R&D mockery. HUGE issues with a game are always delegated to 'this calls for an edition overhaul!!! 11!!". So I've bookmarked this thread. This is SO going to come up when that promo video is released to wide acclaim by the previous 4E "grind? no issue!" loyalists here. [/QUOTE]

Verification