Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- Pocket Sized Adventures! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed for 1-2 game sessions.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Willie the Duck" data-source="post: 9877268" data-attributes="member: 6799660">Lord knows, I have found myself in the situation where I'm a half dozen posts into an internet argument and can't find a way to back down (and I don't even have my ego tied up in these forums, or elfgames in general). Still, it always surprises me when otherwise reasonable people (and we've seen them be reasonable) end up in this state. Especially when there is an almost always useable offramp: 'Let me clarify, ...' All our posts are rushed and truncated (by necessity). If you didn't successfully express what you wanted to, or even said something that by the direct text isn't wholly correct, it is wholly reasonable to offer clarification. Greylord, how you see this thread having gone down is not what others see. This whole tempest in a teapot is a dumpster fire of your own creation that did not need to happen. People are not making up ways they think people played back then. People certainly are not telling you that the groups you played with played differently than they did (literally everyone you haven't steered off the conversation have repeatedly stated that they do not speak for your own personal experience, and even that they appreciate your individual perspective). People have challenged you on the statements about verifiable qualities (what was printed in rulebooks and other documents), and what the developer intents were (verifiable through interviews and correspondences with those people and those who knew them directly, something we do not know of you having any claim to). Nothing more, nothing less. Extrapolating that outwards to people 'plugging there ears' to your lived experience (and to having challenged that lived experience) is counterfactual to what is posted on this thread and entirely on you. So please (and the rest of this is just my suggestion), stop digging. Take a breath, say 'that did not go to plan,' and -- if you decide to come back to the thread (and there is no reason that you should not) -- come back ready to say 'Let me clarify...' instead of tripling down. It is okay to restate what you intended to state all along. Listen (well, read) others, and do not put words in their mouths (either in your interpretation of what they say to you or your responses to them). I'd also suggest not making assumptions about how others play today (some of your comments about 5e are not supported by the ruleset and, if treated on commentary about the culture of play of others, come off not unlike Bloodtide's 'kids these days just want a win button' schtick in reverse). You have valuable insight to contribute, and there's no reason why you can't do so and everyone gets a win out of this. My Chainmail is 3rd ed., and does not update in any way. I think the natural language would say that these are spells known, not a casting limit. It certainly would make sense from a unit point value perspective. Wizards cost a lot of points to field, and need a lot of protection (not just because they otherwise are vulnerable and expensive, but because of the above 'stationary and undisturbed by attack' clause). On some level, though, it might not matter -- several of their abilities (become invisible and remain so until they attack, see in darkness, affect friendly and enemy morale as do Super Heroes, as well as both fireballs and lightning bolts*) aren't part of the spell part of their loadout. So in a typical game, a wizard unit might not have enough turns not spent fireballing, wandering around invisible, bolstering troops, or maneuvering into place to actually use more than 2-3 spells.*"they throw deadly missiles, and Wizards cast terrible spells" -- two separate clauses, and invisibility, fireball, and lightning bolt aren't on the spell list. Strange, I know.</blockquote>

Verification