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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bendris Noulg" data-source="post: 927329" data-attributes="member: 6398">Actually, yes.Disclaimer: I take no responsibility for how may statements may rub the inferiority complex of others.Cute, but over-emphasised.  I'm not wanting the game to be perfect, just an acknowledgement that it wasn't (and still won't be) as balanced as some folks like to claim.  After all, that is the point of this debate between you and I, is it not?It's not a strawman, it's fact.  Don't cry a river because you can't disprove it.It does.  Gee, won't this get us far?WotC has stated, plain and clearly, that parts of the game were broken, that spell schools weren't balanced, that metamagic feats need fixing, etc.  That makes that game broken.  No, it's not unplayable, but it's far from balanced (thus, games based on those same rules are also far from balanced).Gee, did I say that..?  Let's see here...  Oh, golly gee willerkers, I didn't say that at all.Time for you to put your own strawmen away.It's well balanced unless you like, as you put it, "cheese".Yes, and it's about time they showed it.I'm not asking them to be perfect.  I'm asking for the Preachers of Balance to put their D&D Bibles away because their arguements are void by the fact that the balance they preach isn't perfect.I guess you allowed yourself to get side-tracked a bit for some reason.Tsk tsk...Might I suggest English lessons instead?If the book is really needed, then they aren't the "minor changes" you'd like to claim.Call it an educated guess.<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /></blockquote>

Verification