Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Cognomen's Cassowary" data-source="post: 7106485" data-attributes="member: 6801445">No, I didn't think it was clever. Do note that I spared you the gory details until after you implied, quite maturely, that your interpretation of the in-narrative functioning of the spell was not an interpretation at all and stated that you were only, quite maturely, explaining the spell as it is written to me.Given that you were unable to identify them, I felt it necessary--not clever--to point out the five interpretive rationalizations you had made in that one paragraph. To whit:1. That magic missile hits automatically because it does force damage,2. That there is no narrative reason for the mechanical differences between magic missile and other spells which deal force damage, such as eldritch blast and disintegrate,3. That magic missile has self-directing capabilities but only within narrow and arbitrary limits,4. That the caster has to aim magic missile just as he or she would any other spell, but that he or she is simply much better at hitting with magic missile, and5. That magic missile is unable to discern its target creature from cover, other creatures, and non-creatures, but it avoids everything except its target creature.Those rationalizations haven't gone anywhere just because you have chosen to ignore them. What your response demonstrates is that you are so emotionally attached to either your narrative of magic missile's functioning or some perception of yourself as unerringly astute in your interpretations that you are able to read a fairly dispassionate assessment of their inconsistencies as falling outside the bounds of decorum.That being the case, you need not feel obliged to answer me any further.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Cognomen's Cassowary, post: 7106485, member: 6801445"] No, I didn't think it was clever. Do note that I spared you the gory details until after you implied, quite maturely, that your interpretation of the in-narrative functioning of the spell was not an interpretation at all and stated that you were only, quite maturely, explaining the spell as it is written to me. Given that you were unable to identify them, I felt it [I]necessary[/I]--not clever--to point out the five interpretive rationalizations you had made in that one paragraph. To whit: 1. That magic missile hits automatically because it does force damage, 2. That there is no narrative reason for the mechanical differences between magic missile and other spells which deal force damage, such as eldritch blast and disintegrate, 3. That magic missile has self-directing capabilities but only within narrow and arbitrary limits, 4. That the caster has to aim magic missile just as he or she would any other spell, but that he or she is simply much better at hitting with magic missile, and 5. That magic missile is unable to discern its target creature from cover, other creatures, and non-creatures, but it avoids everything except its target creature. Those rationalizations haven't gone anywhere just because you have chosen to ignore them. What your response demonstrates is that you are so emotionally attached to either your narrative of magic missile's functioning or some perception of yourself as unerringly astute in your interpretations that you are able to read a fairly dispassionate assessment of their inconsistencies as falling outside the bounds of decorum. That being the case, you need not feel obliged to answer me any further. [/QUOTE]

Verification