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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 8749678" data-attributes="member: 2525">No, for that context it HAD to be binary. At some points it's "not a problem" and then once you cross the line into "a problem" then it's...a problem. Hence a binary take. If it being "a problem" is based on "quality of players" that means he's saying it's in some way a "low enough quality" of players to have crossed the line into being a problem.But it's not a "tiny" advantage at all. Which is why I commented on the topic earlier with the Musician feat. It's advantage on any check: Death saves, Concentration, Saving Throws, Initiative, ANY d20. That's not a tiny thing for this game, it's a big thing, You want that. It's roughly a +5 to a check, depending on average target DC. I don't think it's "taking it to the extreme" to try to get advantage on any important check.And I didn't say or imply attacking chairs. I started the conversation, and he had responded to it, with a list of examples none of which were anything like attacking chairs. They're ALL things players already do (check a door for traps, listen at a door for creatures, check for secret doors, try and identify various symbols on walls, etc..) but they might be inclined to do it more where they otherwise wouldn't have, which has a TENDANCY to slow the game down. See how that was never stated as an extreme like you tried to spin it?Seems like you decided to strawman me claiming I was taking it to the extreme, and then your strawman took it to the extreme? Or had you just not read the posts leading up to this?Ha no, I really didn't. You did. I spelled out the behavior I was talking about with specific examples, none of which you mentioned. You exaggerated my position, while...accusing me of exaggerating someone else's position. Which I gotta say, is pretty funny, if you hadn't been so indignant about it.Well you didn't start your post off with "so you're saying" but you did that very thing to me. And he was in fact saying bad players. I have yet to hear you explain how he was not. He was in fact responding with a binary response - I can see no other way to read it and you just posited it was a spectrum without actually examining the statement you were applying it to and seeing there wasn't a rational way to take it as a spectrum rather than him commenting on the problem being "low quality players".</blockquote>

Verification