Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Fanaelialae" data-source="post: 5213115" data-attributes="member: 53980">I'm of the school of thought that if the highest DC is 20 and a 20 can be attained by taking 10, then the DC difference is merely academic (and therefore largely irrelevant).&nbsp; A 1.1 lb object is heavier than one that weighs exactly 1 lb; however, it simply isn't a noticeable or meaningful difference for a healthy adult who lifts each, despite that a precision scale would certainly note the difference.I think your DC analogy above is actually a pretty good one for this discussion, though I would probably set the default DCs at 11 and 12, myself.&nbsp; I don't deny that 4e is probably a little harder to run without a grid than 1e; I just don't think it's significantly harder.&nbsp; Pretty much anyone can learn to run 1e with a little practice.&nbsp; I believe it to be the same with 4e.&nbsp; I knew a DM who wasn't exactly a genius and yet was still capable of running 3e without a grid.&nbsp; IMO, based on that anyone can do it with any edition provided they're willing to apply themselves.Realistically speaking, I think deriving an objective difficulty value for both 4e and 1e would be approximately as difficult as predicting the next two presidents using the laws of physics.&nbsp; Sure, if we eliminate the existence of a higher power, free will, and quantum mechanics it's probably possible (in theory).&nbsp; However, it isn't feasible in any practical sense in the real world.&nbsp; There are an enormous number of minute difference between the two editions, each of which you'd have to objectively measure according to a scale that hasn't even been invented (AFAIK).Even if it were possible, such a number would be of dubious value, since the most meaningful value is your own subjective value.&nbsp; If the objective difficulty value of 1e is 7 and 4e is 9, how is that of any relevance to me if I find it subjectively easier to run 4e?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Fanaelialae, post: 5213115, member: 53980"] I'm of the school of thought that if the highest DC is 20 and a 20 can be attained by taking 10, then the DC difference is merely academic (and therefore largely irrelevant). A 1.1 lb object is heavier than one that weighs exactly 1 lb; however, it simply isn't a noticeable or meaningful difference for a healthy adult who lifts each, despite that a precision scale would certainly note the difference. I think your DC analogy above is actually a pretty good one for this discussion, though I would probably set the default DCs at 11 and 12, myself. I don't deny that 4e is probably a little harder to run without a grid than 1e; I just don't think it's significantly harder. Pretty much anyone can learn to run 1e with a little practice. I believe it to be the same with 4e. I knew a DM who wasn't exactly a genius and yet was still capable of running 3e without a grid. IMO, based on that anyone can do it with any edition provided they're willing to apply themselves. Realistically speaking, I think deriving an objective difficulty value for both 4e and 1e would be approximately as difficult as predicting the next two presidents using the laws of physics. Sure, if we eliminate the existence of a higher power, free will, and quantum mechanics it's probably possible (in theory). However, it isn't feasible in any [i]practical[/i] sense in the real world. There are an enormous number of minute difference between the two editions, each of which you'd have to objectively measure according to a scale that hasn't even been invented (AFAIK). Even if it were possible, such a number would be of dubious value, since the most meaningful value is your own subjective value. If the objective difficulty value of 1e is 7 and 4e is 9, how is that of any relevance to me if I find it subjectively easier to run 4e? [/QUOTE]

Verification