Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
If it's an obvious choice then it's broken
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="tiornys" data-source="post: 5596377" data-attributes="member: 17633"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.)</p><p></p><p>t~</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="tiornys, post: 5596377, 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~ [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
If it's an obvious choice then it's broken
Top