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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 6989647" data-attributes="member: 12731">No. It's fine for you to conclude your preferences are different from mine. But please try to abstain from claiming you have done a complete job of justifying your stance while I haven't, insinuating I'm presenting an ever-shifting target.What I am saying is that I don't see your chosen tack, to bring every fighting style up to the level of the best ones, as inherently better, easier or more workable than my chosen tack, to bring the "overperforming" builds back down to some kind of baseline. When I explain my reasons, you invalidate those points but not the reasons. For instance, if I explain one reason is to make the Monster Manual viable, you present several misgivings about that product. But that only explains why you might not make my choices, it does not invalidate my reason. If I explain one reason is to make currently underserved builds viable, you can't simply dismiss that by "everybody knows dualwielding is useless IRL and in the game", and you can't deny the discussion by a simple "the sorlock is better so why bother". Not if you're genuinely trying to make constructive input. It would be much more useful for my aims if you actually responded to my discussion issues, rather than coming up with various ways of why I shouldn't have them in the first place. Under no circumstances do I consider it okay for you to accuse me of presenting a shifting target. It is you who continously introduce more variables. While this might be constructive and educational, it also does naturally mean I need to increase my scope without that necessarily indicating me trying to shift the goalposts.Best Regards,Zapp</blockquote>

Verification