Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Rystil Arden" data-source="post: 3457856" data-attributes="member: 29014">Actually, it was intentionally absurd.  What I just did there is a logically valid argument.  Check here: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum" target="_blank">reductio ad absurdum</a>In this case, you made the following logical statement:Okay, I admit that it murders all dragons and similar low touch AC high SR monsters.  But that's a special case you chose.  There are some things that it is terrible against, like ghosts.  So it is balanced.So I used reductio ad absurdum--your argument is that as long as something doesn't work against some enemies, it is balanced, so that should apply in the extreme (I was nice--I could have made it kill everything except orcs, but I made it even more specialised than orbs--Orcbane works against a small minority of things, but it ruins the game if those are your opponents).  Your argument doesn't stand up in the extreme case, as you then admitted.(If you didn't click the link, the most familiar case of reductio ad absurdum is:Father- Why did you start smoking? Daughter - All my friends were doing it. Father- You're saying that if all your friends jumped off a cliff, you would do that too? )</blockquote>