Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Upper_Krust" data-source="post: 93891" data-attributes="member: 326">Lets get ready to RUMBLE!.Hi jasamcarl! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> If you are refering to how deities were treated then 1st Ed. was as balanced as the rules themselves. 2nd Ed. eschewed balance by making the deities virtually omnipotent (and therefore irrelevant with regards allowing tangible interaction).Its not an assumption. Ed Stark (WotC); whose actually in charge of both Deities & Demigods and the Epic Level Handbook projects informed me (and the rest of the WotC Message Boards) that D&Dg would cater for Deity PCs, though it wouldn't be the focus of the book. Obviously WotC have already thought of this, which is why we can presume the Salient Divine Abilities are roughly balanced (as much as such thiings can be balanced). Its certainly plausible, but not given the current evidence.True, if my speculation is accurate. Which was my position all along.I am certainly willing to concede my speculation may be misplaced, in fact I hope I am wrong! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> Lets just hold it there.Feel free to quote me but don't start paraphrasing and putting words in my mouth. Your point was that the 'Avatar' ability could hinder the deity. I already conceded that it could be limited in scope (though we have no such evidence yet) but I went on to add that this in no way effects my mechanical or philosophical argument. Of course. Its the only way to allow them to fairly interact. Again your paraphrasing rather than quoting and using ad hominem attacks when clearly you should be addressing my arguments, which I have conceded all along are speculative based on the current evidence.Your also adjoining my two arguments which I have always clearly divorced by labelling them 'mechanical' and 'philosophical'.'Mechanically' the ability to create something more powerful than yourself in and of your own power is broken. Based on current evidence we can hypothesise (this to be the case) and subsequently speculate - but at no point did I draw conclusions.'Philosophically' I always believed Avatars would be better served as 'middle-men' between Mortals and Deities. WotC don't seem to have gone this route which is fair enough in itself, but I would argue does not promote interaction - which is one of the primary reasons for having stats in the first place. Hardly 'wild' since I have clearly labelled my evidence from the beginning.With regards you being the optimist - you are certainly seeing windmills and imagining they might be giants - I'll give you that! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> One (hypothesised) mistake (and another point I don't philosophically agree with personally) within such a vast body of mechanics hardly denotes incompetence; again you put words in my mouth. Speculative, not specious. Many of which we do know, others we can guess and overall are capable of gauging the 'typical' measure of the abilities. Irrelevant analogy. Again you are discussing what we don't know, whereas I am discussing what we do know.  We can already discern (approx.) 75% of the revealed Salient Divine Abilities. Its hardly a great leap of faith to assume WotC would want the rest 'roughly' balanced.  To speculate that multiple Avatars might be possible. Not to confirm the point. Not when your only evidence is paraphrasing hyperbole! If I wan't having fun here I would have ignored your opening salvo. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />The only valid point you have made is that we don't yet know all the facts so my criticisms are speculative - which I have attested to all along! None of which affects my 'mechanical' or 'philosophical' arguments! ...have you something new to add? Yep, it should be a great book! The 1st Ed. book is probably my favourite of all time, I am hoping it will soon be knocked into second place! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> I would have thought deductive reasoning would be more appropriate. Thanks!  I appreciate the interest! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I look forward to all feedback. If you have any questions I would be more than happy to answer them in the IH thread (or via email).</blockquote>

Verification