Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 6923312" data-attributes="member: 16814">No one has made those arguments.  I mean, yes, someone has used math to show the "power" of the feat, and someone has concluded that the feats are broken (very few, though, and not me, to whom you are responding), and average AC has been referenced in some side arguments (the average taken from all creatures and from creatures at certain CRs).  The next argument though, the one where you say 'but what if the DM doesn't choose that many low-AC enemies" does not result in your argument "they think that if the DM's choice of monsters does anything but make these feats as powerful as they can possibly be, that said DM is "fixing" something "broken"."You're conflating arguments to create an argument not made.Ah, so you taking me out of context isn't actually taking me out of context because you know what I'm saying better than I do, plus it's wrong. No.Yes, it is.  Twice now you have snipped a sentence immediately before I provide the qualifying and illuminating points for my argument, and then attacked the snipped piece as if I never said the other parts.  You've snipped my arguments and then refuted the snipped parts with arguments that are themselves refuted by my full quote.  It's a strange and nasty game that you continue to intentionally play and could easily be avoided by not selectively editing your quotes of me.I didn't forget what you claimed, but that's not what's occurring.You are mischaracterizing my arguments by taking them out of context.  This is easy to see in every case because your counterarguments ignore the parts you didn't quote that directly address your counter arguments.  Your selective edits are allowing you to continue a conversation by continually ignoring the premises of my points that you dislike.  That's not editing for clarity, it's direct misrepresentation.That's honestly what I picked up from your statements.  If it's not your intent, please, I'm all ears.That's funny.  Right below this you said you thought at the time that your first game was "absolutely" good, but now you recognize it wasn't.  But here you claim that any DM will know what's not good about his game as he's running it and regardless of his experience?  This is a bit of cognitive dissonance -- you're claiming two conflicting arguments are true of the same thing at the same time.I'm pretty confident that no one runs a great game the first time out.Your "in fact" is confirming my argument, not refuting it.  The first time DM you counsel to not change things on a whim is very much expecting that change and the rest of the rules to work out a certain way, and, as you note, that's rarely the case.  It takes experience to begin to anticipate how rules will actually function, and that's my point with these feats:  the penalty looks like it will be effective in limiting the usefulness of the feats but they are actually more effective in more cases than is immediately apparent.  By 10th level, it is better to use the feat against an AC 18 (which is rare for monsters) than to not to, and that's not assuming advantage or bless or bardic inspiration.  Add those and it gets better.  That's not immediately obvious.And then your second sentence confirms my other point about an intentional selection of monsters to offset the feats.  It's like you forgot what I was saying, or else grossly misunderstood it.I actually am unsurprised by this.  I, however, knew at the time my first game sucked, but I had good friends that were willing to muddle along for awhile.  Then we rotated DMs and I went back to learning by observation.  Then I got better.  But, at no time, did I think I was "absolutely" a good DM.  I count myself a better than fair one now because I'm constantly assessing what I could be doing better.Trainwrecks can be their own kind of fun.  I never said I didn't have fun, my game, however, was a trainwreck.Oh, come on.  You said that my statement might be a threat.  I said 'how could you possibly think it was a threat?' You responded with an example about a parent threatening a child with similar wording.  I responded with asking you if you actually thought I had as much authority over you as a parent, with the intent to show that your example was ridiculous because, of course, I have no such authority or power over you.  Apparently, you agree (as I expected you would).  That you're upset by my question, given you floated the example that prompted it of a parent-child relationship, is really weird.  Did you expect something else to occur from your example?  Generally, when people tell me something works one way if one person is a parent and the other a child, I am going to ask how that's remotely applicable, and I may use sarcasm to do it because, really, how could you take such a thing seriously in the first place.  It begs for sarcasm.</blockquote>

Verification