JiffyPopTart
Bree-Yark
Right, and you're right—it's entirely subjective. Keep in mind how this particular thread of the conversation started, though:
Samloyal23 stated, "I have yet to see a good argument against having a skill and feat based psionics system instead of a spell-based system." To which I blithely retorted, "On the other hand, I have yet to see a good argument for having a skill and feat based psionics system instead of a spell-based system." Matching a dismissive statement with an equally dismissive statement with a bit of wry irony for a nod and a wink.
With that throwaway statement out of the way, though, I then went on to address their actual contention with what I believe to be a credible (YMMV) argument for why a skill and feat system isn't well suited to 5e mechanics. I was expecting this to begin a line of conversation wherein Samloyal23 and I (and anyone else) could actually discuss the subject in a worthwhile manor because I thought that they might be wishing to have a productive exchange on the matter.
Unfortunately, Sabathius42 jumped on my opening statement rather than the actual meat of my post with two non-arguments and ending with, "[If these]...are both not good arguments then I'm not sure what else is going to sway you." Since their words suggested that their non-arguments should be enough to sway me, I responded as such. And since those weren't actual arguments for Samloyal23's stance on a skill and feat system and, they wouldn't sway a fence-sitter let alone someone, such as myself, who has given reasons why such a system wound be ill-fitting for the current edition. If Sabathius42 had just said that those were their personal reasons for supporting a skill and feat system, that would be one thing entirely. But they presented them as something that should "sway" someone else, and in that case, no—those are not actual arguments for a skill and feat system and they are not reasons that would sway the opinion of anyone that wasn't already in favor of such a system.
So, to wit, if Sabathius42 is stating that these are good enough reasons for them to be in favor of such a system—more power to them. If, as their initial response to me implies, that they believe that these are valid reasons to convince me or others of their standpoint, then, no, they're wrong. So, no, I don't think that Sabathius42 needs better arguments to justify their opinion to themselves. However, if they want to be part of a discussion that actually weighs the merits and flaws of held opinions and to convince others that their opinions have merit, then yes, they need to put forth a viable argument that actually addresses the subject rather than something tantamount to "just because I think it should be this way".
I am tired of playing "Amateur Lawyer Defense Hour" on ENWorld so i'll just say "Yes, you are correct" and kindly ask you to stop ending statements regarding me or what I have said with the
emoji. It rudely implies that not only is your argument the correct one, but that someone else's is so incorrect that it is somehow baffling to you that it was even made.
