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="seebs" data-source="post: 6773029" data-attributes="member: 61529">It'd be easier to respond if you used /quote tags when doing inline responses.Anyway, I don't think you're responding to the things I'm advocating here. Yes, I'm aware that the Make An Attack rule is different from the rest of the spell resolution rules; that's why I don't think magic missile is at all relevant to a discussion of eldritch blast, because magic missile doesn't use attack rolls, so no question about how magic missile is resolved is particularly relevant to a discussion of how eldritch blast is resolved.I think you would get much better results in discussions if you assumed that other people were not idiots, and had some familiarity with the rules, and tried to understand what points they might be making that would be relevant or topical, rather than focusing so hard on trying to find ways to dismiss things people say. The goal should not be to declare victory, but to achieve a clear understanding of the other side's views so you can productively engage with them. I've read the spell sections, and combat rules, many times, and getting condescending suggestions that I read the rules based on your firm belief that I don't understand them does not fit well with my prior experience of asking you to actually cite to the rules you're quoting, and finding out that they never existed and you just sorta made them up.Look back at the early days of the Disintegrate thread, when you repeatedly claimed that the "Make an Attack" rules gave an explicit order of steps in resolving attacks, but the order you gave was nothing like what was in the rules. It wasn't a one-time thing; you made multiple posts in which you asserted that you had unequivocally shown that the exact rule you were making up was in the text. It wasn't. Nothing even similar to it was in the text, in fact; the order of operations you'd invented was completely absent from the rules.Why exactly should you be telling me to read the rules?Hint: I'm not asking you all these questions about how you'd resolve things because I haven't read the rules. I'm asking them because you are making sweeping assertions about things you claim the rules clearly state, which I haven't found in the rules, and I am trying to understand the model you have built for how the rules work. By asking questions about how you understand the rules. It's not that I couldn't offer answers to these questions; it's that I'm trying to understand your answers. Because I happen to have reached the same conclusion you have (I think) about Eldritch Blast, but your reasoning is still incomprehensible to me, and I'm trying to understand your model, because if you actually have a good argument here, I think it would be beneficial for it to be presented more compellingly and consistently.</blockquote>

Verification