Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="tiornys" data-source="post: 5596377" data-attributes="member: 17633">CharOp does tend to come up with defined parametrics for what kinds of things a class with a given role should be capable of, look at the ways for a given class to meet those parameters, and then reject any approach that fails to meet those parameters as being a waste of time.  In the cases where damage is relevant--primarily strikers, secondarily defenders who rely on damage to draw threat--they have a tendency to ignore builds and even classes (*cough*Vampire*cough*) that aren't capable of meeting certain damage baselines.So, it's not like Herschel doesn't have a point.  It's just that he's a bit confused about what exactly he's criticizing, and consequently has overstated his case in ways that are easy to refute.CharOp has good reasons backing up its parameters, but those reasons are still founded in assumptions that not everyone agrees with, and there are some good reasons to question some of those assumptions.  THAT's where accusations of groupthink could be constructively placed.  Trying to argue from the other direction gets you lost in trivial details or leaves you incapable of mounting a rational argument against the relentless logic.  (CharOp has good logical skills, and they don't make many mistakes in logic.  Attacking their logic is generally futile.  If you disagree with their conclusions, you need to attack their assumptions.)t~</blockquote>