Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Kobold Stew" data-source="post: 6263915" data-attributes="member: 23484">um, source? You're now making up ways that a generic ref is going to arbitrate sailing checks? I've cited page and column numbers -- we're looking at the same page, as you know. Unless you simply are not looking at the documents as well as not looking at the posts of your interlocutor. Really bad form. Again, you've not responded to the argument that's been presented to you. I'm playing a fantasy game where different weapons from different eras must all coexist and have their combat ability defined by a handful of platonic solids. There are more worlds than are tempt of…&quot;Swashbuckler&quot; was a good archetype, and I'll agree with you that Next does not model spears well (by which I of course only mean &quot;to my taste&quot;. But you know what? I can make it work. Let's pretend these are all archetypes. I think I can make any of them work with the limited rules we have. Will they out tank a tank (or out buck our swash)? Absolutely not -- because they are different archetypes. There are some fighter archetypes that are under-supported in the current rules, that are mechanically less viable than others.* And… so what? The premise of this thread is that there were no real choices, and on the issue of the fighter (the real point we are discussing), you have failed to make your case. Further, you're not reading things said to you, and you're shifting the ground of the argument as you go. That's not a conversation. * For several play test packs, I've felt that way about the retiarius (net-and-trident fighter), which is not as mechanically effective as I would like, for example.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Kobold Stew, post: 6263915, member: 23484"] um, source? You're now making up ways that a generic ref is going to arbitrate sailing checks? I've cited page and column numbers -- we're looking at the same page, as you know. Unless you simply are not looking at the documents as well as not looking at the posts of your interlocutor. Really bad form. Again, you've not responded to the argument that's been presented to you. I'm playing a fantasy game where different weapons from different eras must all coexist and have their combat ability defined by a handful of platonic solids. There are more worlds than are tempt of… "Swashbuckler" was a good archetype, and I'll agree with you that Next does not model spears well (by which I of course only mean "to my taste". But you know what? I can make it work. Let's pretend these are all archetypes. I think I can make any of them work with the limited rules we have. Will they out tank a tank (or out buck our swash)? Absolutely not -- because they are different archetypes. There are some fighter archetypes that are under-supported in the current rules, that are mechanically less viable than others.* And… so what? The premise of this thread is that there were no real choices, and on the issue of the fighter (the real point we are discussing), you have failed to make your case. Further, you're not reading things said to you, and you're shifting the ground of the argument as you go. That's not a conversation. * For several play test packs, I've felt that way about the retiarius (net-and-trident fighter), which is not as mechanically effective as I would like, for example. [/QUOTE]

Verification