Bleedin' 'ell what a kerfuffle. Just to qualify what I meant and to get back on topic:
Pads obviously don't change the physical difficulty of the climbing but this is not the only factor at play in how easy or hard it is to actually get up the route. We can presume that the majority of Peak highballing takes place on desirable classics that are generally mid height solos or near-solos with difficult climbing taking place at a dangerous height off the deck.
The first thing to consider is that there is still an element of risk in this style and I would argue that, if you are committed to a hard sequence of moves, this risk is quite unpredictable. To demonstrate this I present to you my patented model (based on real SCIENCE) that describes the importance of three different factors in determining how well you may come off in a fall.
The factors are ranked in order of importance. When trying to work out the consequences of a fall you should consider all three factors but bear in mind that each factor may be negated by the one before it.
1. How you land.
2. What you land on.
3. How far you've gone before you get to the landing.
You will rarely get away unscathed from a really awkward landing. Think of Helicopter in Font (don't we all know at least 2 people who have ended their holiday by falling off this?), or of the steeplejack who died falling off his ladder... from about the third rung up... yet he managed to land on his neck!
Landing surface - it's all very well landing on pads but I'm sure we can all name several who have broken limbs even when falling onto pads because they landed awkwardly.
Lastly, distance traveled. Think of the Russian air stewardess who survived a fall from cruising altitude because she landed well in a load of bushes. Contrast this with unfortunates who have died after falling over pissed and smacking their head on a kerbstone.
With this in mind, pads can still be rendered useless and if you are committed to a hard sequence at height then you can easily end up in a situation where you land awkwardly because you don't get to plan your "exit" from a problem - your foot skates unexpectedly off a smear/pebble breaks/slap for a hold and miss/fingers suddenly grease off a crimp.
To get to the point (finally): pads can lessen the consequences of a fall (thus making the whole deal "easier") but this is unpredictable (more or less so dependant on the route) and, unless you are very accustomed to the activity, should still feel scary if you are on demanding terrain.
Because they have the potential to significantly reduce the danger of a route pads can lure you onto climbs you otherwise wouldn't attempt ground up. This in itself makes the "experience" easier. Case in point with Archangel above. Two climbers who I'm sure wouldn't think twice about flashing a V1 or V2 boulder problem who haven't yet got on it. The moves are 5b (albeit smeary laybacky arête climbing may not be everyone's cup of tea) so these guys could clearly do it. Convincing yourself that something is suitable to try is a big step.
