Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Rystil Arden" data-source="post: 2167632" data-attributes="member: 29014">Now that I'm done talking about the assassin, I'm going to address your 4 numbered ad hominem attacks (but not your straw man that "Correcting someone is not an ad hominem" because I choose to assume that you are twisting your own statements on purpose to be rude, rather than that you are oblivious to the fact that over 50% of your statements in both threads have been ad hominems)1) I found on the other thread that I could not reasonably talk to you about the fact that the assassin there was unbalanced because you were too busy making ad hominems, and since nobody seemed to believe that 10d6 Sneak Attack being unbalanced was a "Duh" rather than even a debatable issue, I made a poll to prove it.2) You have either forgotten the original thread completely, or, more likely, you are attempting to be obnoxious.  The original assassin did get Sneak Attack all 10 levels if he wanted, and you (and the more reasonable creator Technik4) refused to consider it unbalanced until you saw the results of the poll, at which point Technik admitted it was unbalanced in the other thread (only after though!) and cut the Sneak Attack down.3) There was nothing to correct in the poll's numbers.  The poll's numbers were not a mistake.  Running back from your original argument (which I'll admit was a good idea since it was much farther out there) may be a good rhetorical argument, but then claiming that you never held that viewpoint is pretty easy to disprove online.4) I left because you are making nasty and unfounded ad hominem attacks and ignore all reason.  I'm not sure why I'm bothering.  The person who should be upset about your behaviour is technik4, with whom I was having a discussion.I'm sure based on your childish namecalling attitude in the past that you are going to want to have the last word and make up some more namecalling, so be my guest.  I'm only writing this in the off chance that I was wrong and you were actually oblivious to the fact that your statements have been slanderous (that is, malicious and false, although I suppose they might be libel since they're written).  I've seen coincidences before where this was indeed the case, in which case, I preemptively apologise.  Its happened on enough occasions that I'm pretty sure its no coincidence.</blockquote>

Verification