Post by premmy on May 9, 2012 4:58:08 GMT -6
To preface the post, I don't think the debate is particularly heated. Or rather, perhaps it IS heated but is not sliding into name-calling and the like, so it's all cool.
I think we agree that this right here is the major point of contention. You look at certain data and from that infer mundane abilities do not improve with level. You support this by citing improving values and claiming they're not mundane and by citing non-improving values and claiming they're mundane.
I think your underlying line of reasoning is solid, but you make a mistake in describing several of these values as mundane or not, which invalidates your conclusion.
Regarding saves, our main problem is that we don't know what Gary was thinking at the time he wrote to original booklets - since OD&D does not actually say anything about what saving throws represent. He did not go and say they represent skill, but neither did he go and say they represent luck. Therefore, all we can do is look at the number and how they're used in play and infer from that. I have already pointed out how several categories can be explained through the character's skills just as easily as (or even better than) with luck.
You did not address the specific points I've made regarding this, which leaves me with the conclusion that you can't find fault in the reasoning - or if you do, then please make a specific argument about why a save (which, for PCs, improves with experience) cannot represent experience-granted increased reflexes, quick thinking, grit, etc.. Because, yes (to use an earlier example), if a figher spots a deep pool of water and jumps into it just before the dragon exhales, that can be a matter if plain luck - which I have never denied -; but it also can be a result of heightened tactical awareness and an ability to not freeze up in fear, both stemming from a hardened character's adventuring experience - which is a possibility you consistently refuse to acknowledge.
And to avoid misunderstandings: I'm not saying saving throw situations never represent the character simply getting lucky. I'm saying they also represent skill some of the time, which I think is unreasonable to deny.
Shoddy citation. If we accept AD&D material as indicative of what Gary thought about the matter despite this nominally being an OD&D argument (and I'm fine with that), then let's quote him in full:
It explicitly states, in Gary's own words, that Hit Points also represent skill (which you call mundane), not only luck. The AD&D reference you've chosen seems to defeat your own argument. Hit Points are NOT just luck at avoiding potential damage, they're ALSO the actual experience-earned skill at avoiding damage. And therefore, the gradual increase in HP also represents a gradual increase in the character's mundane, experience- and training-based ability to dodge, parry and otherwise mundanely avoid being wounded.
And while we're talking about AD&D as representative of Gary's thoughts, let us also revisit the matter of saving throws:
Saving throws partially represent skill, not just luck and divine favour. Therefore, improving saving throws suggest that skill also improves (along with luck and divine favour). Exactly what I've been saying all along. Also, in AD&D Dexterity gives you a bonus/penalty to certain saving throws (PHB p.11), further proving that some saves the mundane ability to jump away quick enough and far enough (and the like).
I'm going to bold this not because I'm shouting at you, but because this is really important here:
I have never said that.
You are putting words in my mouth I haven't said then you attack me for them. This is what I wrote:
I have claimed that the PCs' improvement is a fundamental notion of D&D. (Which, to elaborate, is represented both in the rules and in thematic assumptions like gathering loot, moving on to bigger adventures, etc..) I have not said that this is necessarily reflected in every single possible statistic a PC has (which is obviously not true).
No, what the 3LLBs do not say is what you falsely attributed to me.
I would say the same about you, actually. Especially since you are the one espousing the view that mundane abilities should improve with level, when in the rules as written, they don't.
I think we agree that this right here is the major point of contention. You look at certain data and from that infer mundane abilities do not improve with level. You support this by citing improving values and claiming they're not mundane and by citing non-improving values and claiming they're mundane.
I think your underlying line of reasoning is solid, but you make a mistake in describing several of these values as mundane or not, which invalidates your conclusion.
Regarding saves, our main problem is that we don't know what Gary was thinking at the time he wrote to original booklets - since OD&D does not actually say anything about what saving throws represent. He did not go and say they represent skill, but neither did he go and say they represent luck. Therefore, all we can do is look at the number and how they're used in play and infer from that. I have already pointed out how several categories can be explained through the character's skills just as easily as (or even better than) with luck.
You did not address the specific points I've made regarding this, which leaves me with the conclusion that you can't find fault in the reasoning - or if you do, then please make a specific argument about why a save (which, for PCs, improves with experience) cannot represent experience-granted increased reflexes, quick thinking, grit, etc.. Because, yes (to use an earlier example), if a figher spots a deep pool of water and jumps into it just before the dragon exhales, that can be a matter if plain luck - which I have never denied -; but it also can be a result of heightened tactical awareness and an ability to not freeze up in fear, both stemming from a hardened character's adventuring experience - which is a possibility you consistently refuse to acknowledge.
And to avoid misunderstandings: I'm not saying saving throw situations never represent the character simply getting lucky. I'm saying they also represent skill some of the time, which I think is unreasonable to deny.
And doubly so when several later clarifications of "hit points", including (eventually) what Gygax wrote about them in the AD&D DMG,) state quite plainly that hit points *do* represent luck.
Shoddy citation. If we accept AD&D material as indicative of what Gary thought about the matter despite this nominally being an OD&D argument (and I'm fine with that), then let's quote him in full:
These hit points represent how much damage (actual 01: potential) the character can withstand before being killed. A certain amount of these hit points represent the actual physical punishment which can be sustained. The remainder, a significant portion of hit points at higher levels, stands for skill, luck, and/or magical factors.
PHB p.34
PHB p.34
It explicitly states, in Gary's own words, that Hit Points also represent skill (which you call mundane), not only luck. The AD&D reference you've chosen seems to defeat your own argument. Hit Points are NOT just luck at avoiding potential damage, they're ALSO the actual experience-earned skill at avoiding damage. And therefore, the gradual increase in HP also represents a gradual increase in the character's mundane, experience- and training-based ability to dodge, parry and otherwise mundanely avoid being wounded.
And while we're talking about AD&D as representative of Gary's thoughts, let us also revisit the matter of saving throws:
The term saving throw is common enough, coming to us from miniature wargames and DRD. It represents the chance for the figure concerned to avoid (or at least partially avoid) the cruel results of fate. In ADBD it is the same. By means of skill, luck, magical protections, quirks of fate and the aid of supernatural powers, the character making his or her saving throw takes none or only part of the indicated results - fireball damage, poisoning,
being turned to stone, or whatever.
DMG p.80 (emphasis mine)
being turned to stone, or whatever.
DMG p.80 (emphasis mine)
Saving throws partially represent skill, not just luck and divine favour. Therefore, improving saving throws suggest that skill also improves (along with luck and divine favour). Exactly what I've been saying all along. Also, in AD&D Dexterity gives you a bonus/penalty to certain saving throws (PHB p.11), further proving that some saves the mundane ability to jump away quick enough and far enough (and the like).
But surely, you can see that the evidence in the 3LBBs contradicts your statement that all abilities scaling with level is a fundamental assumption of D&D.
I'm going to bold this not because I'm shouting at you, but because this is really important here:
I have never said that.
You are putting words in my mouth I haven't said then you attack me for them. This is what I wrote:
My problem with stat checks is that they go in the face of one of D&D's fundamental notions: your character improves, gets better, levels up, gains power, etc..
I have claimed that the PCs' improvement is a fundamental notion of D&D. (Which, to elaborate, is represented both in the rules and in thematic assumptions like gathering loot, moving on to bigger adventures, etc..) I have not said that this is necessarily reflected in every single possible statistic a PC has (which is obviously not true).
The LBBs do not do what you say you want them to do, so your desires can't possibly be a fundamental assumption of the 3LBBs.
No, what the 3LLBs do not say is what you falsely attributed to me.