D&D General Wizard vs Fighter - the math

[Mort]

I’m a bit confused. Why do you quote me as if you are disagreeing when I’m saying the same thing in either that post or one very near it.

Guess I saw the first part only? Regardless, consider it agreement rather than disagreement then.

 

[FrogReaver]

Maybe not much.
I've just seen the "wizards don't often have the perfect spell prepared...." bandied about as some kind of gotcha quite a lot lately. And it irks me, because perfection isn't needed.

Makes more sense. I think there’s a qualifier there. Perfection is not needed for what - to be as strong as people claim or to be significantly stronger than the fighter (after a certain point).

I fully agree on the later. Need of perfection is a a bad counterpoint there. But it’s 100% spot on for the former.

 

[Aldarc]

I think it's a reasonable position to take that if someone says they like a particular thing, and someone says that the thing is dumbed down and meant for the lowest common denominator, that the first person might take it personally because the second person is directly inferring that only dumbed down or the lowest common denominator kind of people would like it. I don't think that's a stretch. Especially since we have person after person who likes the thing directly telling us that's how they are feeling about those comments.

I'm also pointing out what certainly seems like a double standard. We have 15 years of 4e fans getting really upset every time someone makes a derogatory comment about 4e. "It's just an MMO" "It's not real D&D", etc. etc. I think it's a pretty big double standard to spend the last 15 years allowing those comments, but now suddenly tell 5e fans "Don't take it personally, I'm just taking about the game, not you." Especially when it's some of the same people who have been getting so upset at snide comments directed at 4e now telling 5e fans not to do what they've been doing for 15 years.

Maybe instead of dismissing people with "I'm talking about the game, not you.", we should look closer at what you're (general you) saying about the game. If you're calling it an apologist edition that is meant for the lowest common denominator, you're making a pejorative association with the people who like it. Dismissive hyperbolic attacks aren't criticisms. They are veiled personal attacks meant to rile up fans of that particular thing (regardless of what edition you're talking about).

Here's the bottom line. You are apologizing for personal attacks that are being directed at people. That's not cool, Sacrosanct.

You can get mad at attacks on the game without equating it to a personal attack and trying to use that terminology as a weapon.

You can also get mad at attacks on a game without resorting to personal attacks and breaking forum rules. I don't know why that is so difficult for people to understand either.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Here's the bottom line. You are apologizing for personal attacks that are being directed at people. That's not cool, Sacrosanct.

Wait, what? I'm doing the opposite. What personal attacks am I defending? I'm literally saying, "Calling a game an apologist game catered to the lowest common denominator" is being taken as a personal attack by several people who like the game (because they keep telling us) and shouldn't be said, and am being told "no it's not, it's directed at the game, not the person."

 

[overgeeked]

Wait, what? I'm doing the opposite. What personal attacks am I defending? I'm literally saying, "Calling a game an apologist game catered to the lowest common denominator" is being taken as a personal attack by several people who like the game (because they keep telling us) and shouldn't be said, and am being told "no it's not, it's directed at the game, not the person."

Because that’s how personal attacks work. If you attack a game or an argument you are not attacking a person. Someone taking that personally does not make it a personal attack.

“Your argument sucks” is not a personal attack.

“That thing you like sucks” is not a personal attack.

Someone saying…and to be clear I’m not saying this to you, it’s an example…“You suck” is a personal attack.

Huge difference between the first two and the last one.

 

[FrogReaver]

Because that’s how personal attacks work. If you attack a game or an argument you are not attacking a person. Someone taking that personally does not make it a personal attack.

I think there’s alot of nuance there in respect to how they are attacking the argument or game.

Example: ‘That’s a dumb argument’ is personal IMO.

 

[overgeeked]

I think there’s alot of nuance there in respect to how they are attacking the argument or game.

Example: ‘That’s a dumb argument’ is personal IMO.

You’d be wrong. Unless it attacks the person, it’s not a personal attack.

Your logical fallacy is ad hominem

You attacked your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument.

yourlogicalfallacyis.com

 

[Sacrosanct]

Because that’s how personal attacks work. If you attack a game or an argument you are not attacking a person. Someone taking that personally does not make it a personal attack.

“Your argument sucks” is not a personal attack.

“That thing you like sucks” is not a personal attack.

Someone saying…and to be clear I’m not saying this to you, it’s an example…“You suck” is a personal attack.

Huge difference between the first two and the last one.

"The game you like is designed for dumb people and is nothing but an apologist edition" very well can be a personal attack. I'm not sure why this keeps getting ignored. This isn't "the game sucks" phrases I'm talking about. It's the "the game is designed for dumb people" is. If people keep telling you that it's offensive than maybe, just maybe, you should listen instead of constantly handwaving them away with "no it's not." You (general you, which includes me) don't have the right to tell people who are being offended that they shouldn't be. That's not how it works.

 

[overgeeked]

"The game you like is designed for dumb people and is nothing but an apologist edition" very well can be a personal attack. I'm not sure why this keeps getting ignored. This isn't "the game sucks" phrases I'm talking about. It's the "the game is designed for dumb people" is.

Maybe I’m just lucky in that I have the right people blocked because I don’t see anyone saying 5E was designed for dumb people.

If people keep telling you that it's offensive than maybe, just maybe, you should listen instead of constantly handwaving them away with "no it's not." You (general you, which includes me) don't have the right to tell people who are being offended that they shouldn't be. That's not how it works.

Those are two wildly different things. A person being offended by something in no way implies they’re right nor that the other person is wrong. It also doesn’t change the nature of an argument. “That game you like sucks” doesn’t become a personal attack because someone chooses to be offended by that statement. That’s not how it works.

 

[Aldarc]

Maybe I’m just lucky in that I have the right people blocked because I don’t see anyone saying 5E was designed for dumb people.

Me neither, but maybe Sacrosanct has some actual examples of that happening in this thread?

Those are two wildly different things. A person being offended by something in no way implies they’re right nor that the other person is wrong. It also doesn’t change the nature of an argument. “That game you like sucks” doesn’t become a personal attack because someone chooses to be offended by that statement. That’s not how it works.

It also doesn't excuse the next step, which is when people then choose to make actual personal attacks against other people.