Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="hanez" data-source="post: 5781283" data-attributes="member: 82160">I also think that some of the Oberoni Fallacy arguments are a bit illogical.&nbsp; You are saying there is only one situation, and we are pointing out other possible situations that make all classes shine.&nbsp; I say &quot;the dm should give magic items to if the fighter is feeling week&quot; you say &quot;Why should he have to?&quot;I say &quot;the DM should have a varitey of situations to make all classes powerful&quot; you say&nbsp; &quot;Oberon Fallacy!&nbsp; You have to make a situation for the fighter to shine!&quot;and on, and on...But In D&amp;D the DM DOES set the parameters, and he IS supposed to set the parameters to make the game fun right?&nbsp; That's the purpose of the DM.&nbsp; So perhaps if in your game a class was running around being god, maybe it was the DMs fault in not puttin up situations where other classes could shine.&nbsp;&nbsp; And if the only thing you found unbalaned in D&amp;D was the situation &quot;walk into a room, roll initiative&quot;, then again perhaps the DM was doin it wrong because there are supposed to be a variety of situations in D&amp;D (right?).In 3e, I didnt notice the problem as much, but if it was really that bad&nbsp; then sure, the rules need to be fixed so that classes are balanced.&nbsp; Maybe I was just an amazing DM (haha).&nbsp; So if a lot of people noticed it and they were playing with nonhorrible DMs then I agree, lets make some tweaks.&nbsp; But its possible that there was also a DM problem too or even an adventure problem, WOTC has been known to make one sided adventures.But I stress that any ruleset you make will still depend on the DM.&nbsp; If the DM repeatedly only throws one type of situation at you, then the class that shines in that situation will be seen as stronger.&nbsp; And it is perfectly logical and NOT a fallacy for me to say &quot;well if the DM did this .... then you wouldnt have the problem&quot;I also see a little bit of puttin words in peoples mouths, like arguing against a false case.&nbsp; The superman/jimmy olsen thing.&nbsp; I don't believe that metaphor was true in ANY edition of D&amp;D.&nbsp; (Superman was a superhero, jimmy is a weak regular human).&nbsp; So if your using that as a construct for your argument, your on weak ground.&nbsp; Unless you can somehow show that the difference between any two classes was equal to the difference between superman and jimmy olsen.&nbsp; Maybe instead you mean Superman/Batman?I still maintain my previous posts position that we are mostly all agreeing.&nbsp; Sometimes arguing is fun for its own sake though (lol)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="hanez, post: 5781283, member: 82160"] I also think that some of the Oberoni Fallacy arguments are a bit illogical. You are saying there is only one situation, and we are pointing out other possible situations that make all classes shine. I say "the dm should give magic items to if the fighter is feeling week" you say "Why should he have to?" I say "the DM should have a varitey of situations to make all classes powerful" you say "Oberon Fallacy! You have to make a situation for the fighter to shine!" and on, and on... But In D&D the DM DOES set the parameters, and he IS supposed to set the parameters to make the game fun right? That's the purpose of the DM. So perhaps if in your game a class was running around being god, maybe it was the DMs fault in not puttin up situations where other classes could shine. And if the only thing you found unbalaned in D&D was the situation "walk into a room, roll initiative", then again perhaps the DM was doin it wrong because there are supposed to be a variety of situations in D&D (right?). In 3e, I didnt notice the problem as much, but if it was really that bad then sure, the rules need to be fixed so that classes are balanced. Maybe I was just an amazing DM (haha). So if a lot of people noticed it and they were playing with nonhorrible DMs then I agree, lets make some tweaks. But its possible that there was also a DM problem too or even an adventure problem, WOTC has been known to make one sided adventures. But I stress that any ruleset you make will still depend on the DM. If the DM repeatedly only throws one type of situation at you, then the class that shines in that situation will be seen as stronger. And it is perfectly logical and NOT a fallacy for me to say "well if the DM did this .... then you wouldnt have the problem" I also see a little bit of puttin words in peoples mouths, like arguing against a false case. The superman/jimmy olsen thing. I don't believe that metaphor was true in ANY edition of D&D. (Superman was a superhero, jimmy is a weak regular human). So if your using that as a construct for your argument, your on weak ground. Unless you can somehow show that the difference between any two classes was equal to the difference between superman and jimmy olsen. Maybe instead you mean Superman/Batman? I still maintain my previous posts position that we are mostly all agreeing. Sometimes arguing is fun for its own sake though (lol) [/QUOTE]

Verification