Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DemonLord57" data-source="post: 4335494" data-attributes="member: 71260">A few points here:1) Do you honestly believe that they examined the system well enough math-wise to warrant a claim of intention? The fact that Careful Attack and Twin Strike are both &quot;options&quot; for the Ranger destroys any credibility to that argument.2) You claim to look into the rules and divine the &quot;intent&quot; of the designers, especially on &quot;easy&quot; issues like this. You cannot claim to be able to know what the designers intended. Especially in situations like this. Just because you think it is &quot;broken&quot; doesn't mean &quot;the designers intent&quot; was different from what the rules truly are. Don't claim you know what they intended based on your evaluation of how &quot;broken&quot; it is, do it by showing us textual evidence of intent. Designer intent is not retroactive based on how it happens to work within the game, nor how you think it will be &quot;broken&quot; in a game.3) Beyond that, does this supposed &quot;intent&quot; of the designers you claim to know even matter?&nbsp; If you want to houserule it, that's perfectly fine. Just don't yell at the rest of us for talking about the RAW, what is actually written.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DemonLord57, post: 4335494, member: 71260"] A few points here: 1) Do you honestly believe that they examined the system well enough math-wise to warrant a claim of intention? The fact that Careful Attack and Twin Strike are both "options" for the Ranger destroys any credibility to that argument. 2) You claim to look into the rules and divine the "intent" of the designers, especially on "easy" issues like this. You cannot claim to be able to know what the designers intended. Especially in situations like this. Just because you think it is "broken" doesn't mean "the designers intent" was different from what the rules truly are. Don't claim you know what they intended based on your evaluation of how "broken" it is, do it by showing us textual evidence of intent. Designer intent is not retroactive based on how it happens to work within the game, nor how you think it will be "broken" in a game. 3) Beyond that, does this supposed "intent" of the designers you claim to know even matter? If you want to houserule it, that's perfectly fine. Just don't yell at the rest of us for talking about the RAW, what is [I]actually written[/I]. [/QUOTE]

Verification