Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="mneme" data-source="post: 5596368" data-attributes="member: 59248">Hershel, watch your tone.&nbsp; I'm pretty sure ad homenim is prohibited (and for good reason).All I did was look at the first few entries in each category (the ones where I thought damage was least relevant; obviously strikers and some controllers care about damage more), without cherry picking or leaving stuff out.&nbsp; Maybe you think I'd have done better starting at the end of the alphabet?Near as I can tell, your argument against charop is completely specious.&nbsp; You're starting with 'they only care about damage and to-hit&quot;, and back away when shown evidence; the closest you can manage is that most builds have some damage feats.&nbsp; And centrally, you're basically saying &quot;they stress mechanical optimization, so they're wrong&quot; -- but that's the whole point of charop. A valid claim (were it true), would be that c-o only stresses damage, ignoring other factors of the classes roles.&nbsp; But in every case I looked for, I saw the damage options deemphaiszed in favor of control, defense, and mark enforcement for defenders, and healing, defense, and enabling for leaders.It may be that there's a broad prejudice towards idealized roles and damage, but you've failed to make an effort to show it; instead you keep bringing out isolated arguments, like attacking parts of the Swordmage handbook (looks inconsistently updated, with Versitile Expertise in gold despite trailing in levels 11-14 and 21-24, and the builds are kinda boring, but the ratings are pretty solid, with good ratings on plenty of strength secondary powers) rather than showing the pattern you aledge.The closest I can draw from your claims is that &quot;people are wrong sometimes&quot; . Well, yes.Also, one thing to keep in mind on that forum: there are builds and there are guidebooks.&nbsp; The reasons people like guidebooks have -nothing- to do with the builds in them, IMO.&nbsp; The point of a guidebook isn't to provide sample builds; it's to rate powers and give general advice.&nbsp; So attacking a guidebook because it has boring, unimaginative builds is kinda missing the point; it's a flaw, sure (particularly when, as in this case, all the builds have exactly the same array), but if you want to look at builds, look at the build threads or lists.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="mneme, post: 5596368, member: 59248"] Hershel, watch your tone. I'm pretty sure ad homenim is prohibited (and for good reason). All I did was look at the first few entries in each category (the ones where I thought damage was least relevant; obviously strikers and some controllers care about damage more), without cherry picking or leaving stuff out. Maybe you think I'd have done better starting at the end of the alphabet? Near as I can tell, your argument against charop is completely specious. You're starting with 'they only care about damage and to-hit", and back away when shown evidence; the closest you can manage is that most builds have some damage feats. And centrally, you're basically saying "they stress mechanical optimization, so they're wrong" -- but that's the whole point of charop. A valid claim (were it true), would be that c-o only stresses damage, ignoring other factors of the classes roles. But in every case I looked for, I saw the damage options deemphaiszed in favor of control, defense, and mark enforcement for defenders, and healing, defense, and enabling for leaders. It may be that there's a broad prejudice towards idealized roles and damage, but you've failed to make an effort to show it; instead you keep bringing out isolated arguments, like attacking parts of the Swordmage handbook (looks inconsistently updated, with Versitile Expertise in gold despite trailing in levels 11-14 and 21-24, and the builds are kinda boring, but the ratings are pretty solid, with good ratings on plenty of strength secondary powers) rather than showing the pattern you aledge. The closest I can draw from your claims is that "people are wrong sometimes" . Well, yes. Also, one thing to keep in mind on that forum: there are builds and there are guidebooks. The reasons people like guidebooks have -nothing- to do with the builds in them, IMO. The point of a guidebook isn't to provide sample builds; it's to rate powers and give general advice. So attacking a guidebook because it has boring, unimaginative builds is kinda missing the point; it's a flaw, sure (particularly when, as in this case, all the builds have exactly the same array), but if you want to look at builds, look at the build threads or lists. [/QUOTE]

Verification