Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 9011822" data-attributes="member: 2525">Kinda a jerk think to say, Chaosmancer. You start out that way and I am a lot less interested in whatever you have to say. Because I know you're going in biased, and have insulted me. Pretty poor manners there buddy. Nothing I said should get that kind of reaction from you.Because it's the subclass we have for this playtest and I just lumped it all in because it's what we're working with. It's fair to say it doesn't apply to all the fighter but it's not fair to take the shot you took at the end there. Again, you seem way over the top aggressive for giving my impression of a video I watched once and telling people to watch it themselves. Take it way down a few notches there my man,I see no issues with this at all. We're comparing rules set to rules set. The fighter gains a lot of benefits from the new rules. It's fair to point that out. It absolutely is worthy of mention with the class analysis.And again, the snark level on your final comment in that paragraph? Unnecessary. Three strikes.It's fair because this is the new rules we're assessing and the fighter benefits from them. I have no idea why you want to assess them in isolation from the rest of the rules, and I'd bet you would have no issue assessing the spellcasting classes benefit from having just three broad spell pools now, which is a rules change and not a class change. Feats are the domain of the Fighter more than any class, it's absolutely relevant to assess this rules change which impacts them. If you're "frustrated" because you would do it different, I suggest you post your own analysis and do it different. I promise you, his audience thinks this is a fair way to do it.Yes it's fair to ask his audience what they think about how the rule works before using it that way in his video. You seem upset about that, like he should have done something different? No idea why you'd think that.I absolutely disagree and a majority of people disagree with you on this. The ruling is based on other rulings that already exist in the game. Without clarification, the other rulings say it should be run the way he's assuming it is run.It isn't clearer in other parts of the rules which have similar triggering issues.Yes, it's assessing an aspect of the new fighter. Why on earth wouldn't he assess it? You're saying he shouldn't assess a new part of the fighter because you what, think it's unfair or something? And it's OK if part of an assessment is self-evident. I once again have to ask, where are you going with this? It's like you're objecting to anyone doing an assessment.Other rules trigger just like this, that's where the ruling came from. Maybe they will clarify otherwise, but until that happens the reason he and others went with that ruling is based on prior rulings. Which showed it was RAI for those other rulings. You follow precedent when unsure, until otherwise clarified. That's the fair way to do it.Make a video and post it. After all you are dead set on absolutist comparisons (and I disagree yours was), so to compare your analysis we're going to have to see it just like we saw it with Treantmonk.Is that a fair approach? Yes, when a guy starts out with insults, dishes out unhelpful snark, and rages about assumptions people are making because it's the best rules we have to determine how vague rules are supposed to work. It's definitely a fair approach.I await your video and will appreciate you putting yourself out there like Treantmonk does. Hope you're up for the pubic criticism like you were so willing to dish out in such a rude manner.</blockquote>

Verification