Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="FormerlyHemlock" data-source="post: 6842681" data-attributes="member: 6787650">Well yes, at this point yes I am. When you quote the DMG in an attempt to prove ambiguity, and you snip the quote right before the part that explicitly removes the ambiguity (text reference to adjusted XP, in addition to the table heading reference to adjusted XP), and you further ignore the fact that the ambiguity vel none is over the size of the XP award to the players and not how to compute the adventuring day AND you ignore the math behind the guidelines, which makes it obvious why using adjusted XP is the only sane option the writers could have intended...Either you're being willfully intellectually dishonest, or I'm wildly overestimating your reading comprehension and math skills. Could be either I suppose, if Dunning-Kruger is a thing in real life. Would you take it as a compliment then if I called you willfully intellectually dishonest on this subject? I think if you had time to cool off you might re-read the guidelines, admit that you're violating them, and claim that your way is better. (Maybe it is. I have no opinion.) Right now you're willfully distorting them in order to avoid that. My opinion on that is that it's unambiguously wrong.I'll bow out of this thread now. No point in beating a dead horse. Please continue your homebrewing exercise.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="FormerlyHemlock, post: 6842681, member: 6787650"] Well yes, at this point yes I am. When you quote the DMG in an attempt to prove ambiguity, and you snip the quote right before the part that explicitly removes the ambiguity (text reference to adjusted XP, in addition to the table heading reference to adjusted XP), and you further ignore the fact that the ambiguity vel none is over the size of the XP award to the players and not how to compute the adventuring day AND you ignore the math behind the guidelines, which makes it obvious why using adjusted XP is the only sane option the writers could have intended... Either you're being willfully intellectually dishonest, or I'm wildly overestimating your reading comprehension and math skills. Could be either I suppose, if Dunning-Kruger is a thing in real life. Would you take it as a compliment then if I called you willfully intellectually dishonest on this subject? I think if you had time to cool off you might re-read the guidelines, admit that you're violating them, and claim that your way is better. (Maybe it is. I have no opinion.) Right now you're willfully distorting them in order to avoid that. My opinion on that is that it's unambiguously wrong. I'll bow out of this thread now. No point in beating a dead horse. Please continue your homebrewing exercise. [/QUOTE]

Verification