Pathfinder 1E Elephant in the room/thread Forked Thread: Pathfinder - sell me

[rounser]

Because you've engaged them before, and the same circumstances developed then. That doesn't change anything. It's pretty clear, for instance, that Mustrum_Ridcully was unsurprised by your "tactics".

Bollocks, they engage everybody on the topic, so far as I can see. There aren't enough hours in the day for me to help them establish the kind of reputation as 4E defenders, apologists and shock troops that I associate with some of these names.

I don't deny that I have a reputation too, but it's not all me with the bag full of fanaticism, much as you may wish it was.

 

[Dannager]

It's exactly how I accept they are - armchair expert's on other's specialist areas, handing out commands!

This is nonsense. The Warlord could just as easily be played as someone who a) offers tactical advice, b) distracts opponents, creating opportunities for party members, c) has a personality so inspiring that the way he conducts himself in combat drives his allies to push themselves beyond their limits without even needing to be prodded verbally, or d) any number of other ways of influencing the flow of a tactical encounter without actually handing out commands.

 

[Dannager]

Bollocks, they engage everybody on the topic, so far as I can see. There aren't enough hours in the day for me to help them establish the kind of reputation as 4E defenders, apologists and shock troops that I associate with these names.

Someone who is projecting imagines others as having his thoughts and qualities, regardless of how he is exposed to them. Just because they're not engaging you all the time doesn't mean that when you see their posts you're not imagining them to be irrational or biased when they are, in reality, even-handed and logical.

 

[Belphanior]

Because they don't impinge on the independence of other characters and their status as peers rather than subordinates, nor the central conceit of the adventuring party as a group of heroes rather than a hierarchy of soldiers taking orders. The nearest thing to an argument you have there is "pick pockets" with the rogue, but any character can steal from or kill others. The warlord's powers imply compliance with their orders implicitly.

Ah, but then you haven't actually done as I asked.

I asked you to think very carefully about what 'rogue' means. And 'rogue' means something utterly antithetical to a member of a team that in unison ventures out and has to trust their lives with eachother. The word 'rogue' can't apply to a nobelborn special agent of the king, who infiltrates the enemy court and acts as a spy and saboteur. And yet this is completely within line of the rogue class of D&D.

But it is obvious that the rogue class is more than the rogue word. The same holds true for the warlock, which originally is an exclusively male word. But we easily accept female warlock PCs without instinctivel calling them witches.

And then we get to the warlord... and you seem to clench up. There is exactly one interpretation of the class, and all others are rejected. I find that most odd.

 

[rounser]

Someone who is projecting imagines others as having his thoughts and qualities, regardless of how he is exposed to them. Just because they're not engaging you all the time doesn't mean that when you see their posts you're not imagining them to be irrational or biased when they are, in reality, even-handed and logical.

And clearly you're passive aggressive and experiencing cognitive dissonance. You should see a therapist.

When you can't win any other way, denigrate your opponent with psychobabble. This is truly the bottom of the barrel, the ultimate in ad hominem attacks. You should be ashamed of yourself, having hide to present yourself as some sort of impartial party. Accuse the opponent of insanity if they don't see things your way, an all new low. Bravo.

 

[rounser]

I asked you to think very carefully about what 'rogue' means. And 'rogue' means something utterly antithetical to a member of a team that in unison ventures out and has to trust their lives with eachother. The word 'rogue' can't apply to a nobelborn special agent of the king, who infiltrates the enemy court and acts as a spy and saboteur. And yet this is completely within line of the rogue class of D&D.

That may as be, but the rogue's powers don't hinge on compliance from other party members doing as he says to function, and all that implies. That's the critical detail.

 

[Dannager]

And clearly you're passive aggressive and having experiencing cognitive dissonance. You should see a therapist.

When you can't win any other way, denigrate your opponent with psychobabble. This is truly the bottom of the barrel, the ultimate in ad hominem attacks. You should be ashamed of yourself, having hide to present yourself as some sort of impartial party. Accuse the opponent of insanity if they don't see things your way, an all new low. Bravo.

You managed to call projection "psychobabble" and "insanity" all in the same post, which tells me pretty clearly you're not familiar with the concept. Given that pretty much everyone engages in it as a defensive mechanism, it falls pretty far from "insane".

But really, this is even more of the same. Instead of giving serious consideration to what others are telling you, you are rejecting everything out of hand, even when it's clear you don't understand what, exactly, you're rejecting.

 

[Dannager]

That may as be, but the rogue's powers don't hinge on compliance from other party members doing as he says to function, and all that implies. That's the critical detail.

I can guarantee you that if the rest of the party's melee characters ignore the rogue's cries for flanking positions, he'll have a pretty hard time functioning effectively, too.

 

[AllisterH]

That may as be, but the rogue's powers don't hinge on compliance from other party members doing as he says to function, and all that implies. That's the critical detail.

Er, the rogue since 3e has been the class that depends the heaviest on other party members to do his job. From getting buffs, to flanking to having team members make scrolls and wands, the rogue is the one class in the game that can't slog it alone since to make best use of his own abilities requires the cooperation of others.

 

[rounser]

You managed to call projection "psychobabble" and "insanity" all in the same post, which tells me pretty clearly you're not familiar with the concept. Given that pretty much everyone engages in it as a defensive mechanism, it falls pretty far from "insane".

I don't care if you've got a degree in that pseudoscientific excuse for a field. You're engaging in reprehensible sneakyduck tactics by trying to question my integrity in this way, where in reality we're just having an argument. It's an ad hominem attack, and so low of you that it calls into question your own integrity.

But really, this is even more of the same. Instead of giving serious consideration to what others are telling you, you are rejecting everything out of hand, even when it's clear you don't understand what, exactly, you're rejecting.

If only I could see "teh troof"...