Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7828357" data-attributes="member: 6919838">Ok so I do confess, I am confused by your responses.You ask about what evidence would be enough to show extreme underpowered... but then attack the responses as if it was asking about just &quot;underpowered&quot;. Its confusing why one would ask about an extreme case and then go after thexresponse for not applying to more general, less extreme cases and kinda keep ignoring that part? That is really confusing me. You also take the response, provide an example of what you call an impossible standard metaphorically and then again pivot from impossible to not universally applicable. Why keep starting at extremes only to then attack the responses for addressing only the extremes you first put forth instead of widely applicable ones?That seems quite confusing... to me at least. So, yes, I am indeed confused by your choices so far as to how to discuss this.Do you find it unreasonable or an impossible standard to meet to expect or require for a popular class seen in play numerous times at many tables that for it to be considered &quot;extremely underpowered&quot; in one of if not the most common pillar (combat) to see in actual play compelling evidence from both player side and GM side that it's bad enough to cause so much trouble the players move away from choosing it and the GM cannot hang key moments on its class features?Now, if you wanted to discuss really the standards for &quot;maybe a little underpowered&quot; or &quot;maybe need a little tweaking&quot; etc, or more broad standards for evidence not just impossible ones, then by all means, i suggest you ask another question.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="5ekyu, post: 7828357, member: 6919838"] Ok so I do confess, I am confused by your responses. You ask about what evidence would be enough to show extreme underpowered... but then attack the responses as if it was asking about just "underpowered". Its confusing why one would ask about an extreme case and then go after thexresponse for not applying to more general, less extreme cases and kinda keep ignoring that part? That is really confusing me. You also take the response, provide an example of what you call an impossible standard metaphorically and then again pivot from impossible to not universally applicable. Why keep starting at extremes only to then attack the responses for addressing only the extremes you first put forth instead of widely applicable ones? That seems quite confusing... to me at least. So, yes, I am indeed confused by your choices so far as to how to discuss this. Do you find it unreasonable or an impossible standard to meet to expect or require for a popular class seen in play numerous times at many tables that for it to be considered "extremely underpowered" in one of if not the most common pillar (combat) to see in actual play compelling evidence from both player side and GM side that it's bad enough to cause so much trouble the players move away from choosing it and the GM cannot hang key moments on its class features? Now, if you wanted to discuss really the standards for "maybe a little underpowered" or "maybe need a little tweaking" etc, or more broad standards for evidence not just impossible ones, then by all means, i suggest you ask another question. [/QUOTE]

Verification