mrm3ntalist wrote:chambordini wrote:Did I mention that like half of QC was explicitly against the change? And even then it went in?
You mean half of the QC that have given some numbers to support this. The others were "I am 1000000% against it, just because..."
Half in still half in a democratic system (Or any system which involve taking into account the opinions of multiple people really). You don't even have to like their reasons.
The fact remains that "Team nerf C&C and Amplify" used the numbers out of context, and pointed to people "using footsteps to metagame hear you and then cast amplify." (This is, by the way, a Red Herring Argument) The problem there is the metagaming, not the spell. The context of amplify and C&C are usually (Read...99%) reactionary, and in some cases where sensitive information is being discussed, precautionary.
It was brought up that bard's permanent detection skills are already passively high, which I countered with numbers, IE the bonus of 6 from inspirations and 6 from greater heroism does nothing but cover the +12 dex bonus most sneaks have (most bards actually have a negative wis mod, so we are still at a -1). I even added that in order to get a full +6 from inspire competence you need a heavy investment in the bard class. This was countered by bringing up amplify could be on a wand, while disregarding, once again, the context of "permanent, passive" detection boosts. (Another Red Herring combined with a inconsistent comparison)
The issue with wands has been countered by the suggestion that amplify simply provide +1 listen per CL, up to a max of 20. And so far as I have seen, that suggestion has just been ignored/not addressed meaningfully in any way.
So when you say that half of QC used numbers to back up this change, I can say without hesitation that, if they used the numbers used here, that they used those numbers out of context. And if the type of debate in this thread is any indication, the most likely assumption on can make is that the issue was simply argued until no one cared to talk about it anymore, and then the silence was counted as a victory (Argument ad infinitum).
And for the sake of transparency, although I have heard this from more than one source I am apparently the only one not afraid to speak my mind publicly. Many people have commented that it seems the most ardent supporter, and indeed the most vocal QC member on this topic in general, plays a HIPSter as his main. Understand I am not throwing this out there as some sort of personal prosecution or accusation, but rather from the understanding that it is 100% impossible to remove all bias. Rather you do it intentionally or not, Mendel, you are biased against detectors and for sneaks. That's fine, everyone does it, and as I said it is impossible to control for 100%, but with that knowledge it strikes me that QC chose an odd person to champion these changes.
