NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 9033604" data-attributes="member: 6801228">Whatever that means.Maybe you should re-read my posts? The point of "can't we just do what you want with monster redesign" has been stated multiple times. And again, no slipperly slope argument here. I'm not going "but where will it end!" I'm pointing out that the reasons given apply to the other three movement types, and yet those movement types don't seem to inspire any need to put restrictions on them or change them. So, if the reasoning is not applied equally, there is likely a reason for that. The reason being, it seems, that the true goal is more cinematic monster fights.Oh really? Tell me, which of my arguments are these statements attacking? Now, maybe I'm just a precious little snowflake with thin skin, but I believe calling my arguments "hysterical" and saying that I need to stop crying over things, as well as labeling it as "inane" doesn't exactly address... the arguments. They are instead presented as judgements on me, my emotional state, and how my emotions are making my arguments unfit for consideration. And, again, I'm not presenting a slippery slope. The closest I came to a slippery slope fallacy was misunderstanding what he wanted when he declared he wanted monsters to line up attacks and give players time to react. A statement I thought was referencing a proposal I've seen many times before for altering the DnD combat system, but that now seems like it is referencing something else entirely that I just don't understand. And that's not a slippery slope, that's miscommunication. In other examples, like "but you'd have to change the monster design" if it was a slippery slope, Justice would have said "no, that's not the case" but instead he said "Yes, exactly." So... no slope, just the plan.</blockquote>

Verification