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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Xeovke" data-source="post: 72334" data-attributes="member: 1203">ApologiesAs a note, the Ogre's ECL should be calculated so that it is fine in the optimal campaign with the optimal class, so the fact that a Troll was good in ECL+8 in Myth's campaign, it only means that the Troll's ECL is *at least* +8, and in the same manner, Ghorgor (the Ogre) being good at ECL +8 in our campaign only means that an Ogre ECL should be *at least* +8.Myth, I mentionned the Tarrasque because nobody really wants to know what the ECL of the Tarrasque is, so whatever the number it would not make sense anyway (I mean, it takes a wish spell cast when she is -10HP or -30HP to kill the tarrasque, with such an ability I don't feel like any ECL would be appropriate, either too high or too low). Did you see the thread on the tarrasque's ECL? that is why I used this monster:it feels clearly silly to give an ECL to the tarrasque, hence such a statement could not be serious. The thing is I was surprised (that's what the ?!? where about) that someone thought the Ogre was equal to the fighter, while he was only better than him, and not by small numbers as I pointed out in my post, and yet someone could consider this as "dead even" (which has a connotation of being an indubitable result in my mind). It was an expression of shock, I certainly did not intend to insult anybody in any way. I apologize if it did. To me, saying things like "If +8 for an ogre is right, then I suppose a Half orc should not be too wrong at ECL+5." is only a way of expressing an opinion while stating how shocked you are (since it is utterly silly to have an half-orc at ECL+5, in the same way that the tarrasque is utterly silly at ECL+20), unless there is an argument after that explaining why you feel the half-orcs ECL should be +5. BTW, partial quoting is a form of distortion (which you illustrated so well by only quoting the parts of my texts that were not arguments, and then considering them as such: saying my whole argument is off simply because the last sentence did not make sense (as it was intended)). You may not have intended to make it, but it still is a form of fallacy. A good example of a similar fallacy would be:[FALLACY]"Your argument is offOgre, CR2 , ECL+5 (DMG) If you were to compare the two it would be: Tarrasque CR20, ECL +50. (and +50 ECL sounds a lot closer to right, over the +80 in the Dragon Mag.) "hence dwarf(not classed) CR .5=ECL 1.25Your argument is off.[/FALLACY]It's a fallacy, since this had nothing to do about the main point of your argument (to which my answer was that ECL is calculated for the optimal class in the optimal campaign) and was out of context. It distorts completely your point. Incidently it shows that CR is not at all a good point in determining the ECL.Again, I apoligize if my over reaction did any harm.Xeovke</blockquote>

Verification