Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 7421022" data-attributes="member: 2525">Oh come on, now you're spinning. If an action helps everyone, it has less of a cost than if it helps only a sub-group. Saying &quot;Well, you have the choice&quot; doesn't change it from having less utility than something that helps everyone. That's like saying a spell which heals one person for 10 hp is identical in utility to a spell that heals 5 people 9hp each, because &quot;Well, you have the choice&quot;. The second spell has a lot more utility, and while there will be scenarios where the first spell is better than the second, on-balance it's fair to say the second will have more utility more often.I get the sense you've staked out a position of &quot;This feat is fine with this new ruling&quot; and have gone from that premise to tailoring any answer you give as &quot;how can I best defend this new status quo&quot; rather than more objectively respond to each issue that's raised. Because I feel like your more typical posts on ENWorld would not have taken the type of bent you just took. It seemed a sort of gamist-type response - as if the game you're playing is &quot;defend the ruling&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mistwell, post: 7421022, member: 2525"] Oh come on, now you're spinning. If an action helps everyone, it has less of a cost than if it helps only a sub-group. Saying "Well, you have the choice" doesn't change it from having less utility than something that helps everyone. That's like saying a spell which heals one person for 10 hp is identical in utility to a spell that heals 5 people 9hp each, because "Well, you have the choice". The second spell has a lot more utility, and while there will be scenarios where the first spell is better than the second, on-balance it's fair to say the second will have more utility more often. I get the sense you've staked out a position of "This feat is fine with this new ruling" and have gone from that premise to tailoring any answer you give as "how can I best defend this new status quo" rather than more objectively respond to each issue that's raised. Because I feel like your more typical posts on ENWorld would not have taken the type of bent you just took. It seemed a sort of gamist-type response - as if the game you're playing is "defend the ruling". [/QUOTE]

Verification