Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 9079665" data-attributes="member: 6801228">Yes, I was seriously defending my choice of using Everest as an example, which you appeared to dismiss because you were fixated on the modern day. Again, you don't get to complain that you made your joke indistinguishable from your actual points, then chose not to clarify it when you realized I was choosing to take you seriously.What Math? Mountains being DC 15 isn't math. Me choosing to allow it to go up to 20 isn't math. The idea of taking 10 and using a passive score isn't math, it is a rule. Page 175 of the PHB. It is for repeated tasks, and spending days or weeks doing the same thing is a repeated task, isn't it? Also, not math.Is it DM Fiat? No more than it is DM Fiat that the Ranger has to roll Survival to navigate at all, since it is DM Fiat when a roll is called for. No more than advantage or disadvantage could be applied, since that is DM Fiat. Every part of a skill usage is &quot;DM Fiat&quot;.Also, &quot;the entire design philosophy&quot; is... the rules of the game. Which, again, I stated that Rangers PER THE CURRENT RULES OF THE GAME are great explorers. Which you scoffed at, stating if I thought it was true it wasn't even worth discussing the ranger with me, because clearly I was so completely off-base. Yet, AGAIN, you point to the problem being the &quot;design philosophy&quot;, the rules are the problem you have. You don't like how the rules work. Which is fine and a valid point... but not a counter-point to my assertion which is firmly WITHIN the rules.I'm not getting frustrated by that. I'm getting frustrated that you are deciding I'm wrong because you are ignoring the premise. It would be like someone saying &quot;But if you have to eat at a Pizza Place, Domino's is good&quot; and you saying, &quot;No, you are wrong, the best fast food is Wendy's!&quot; Sure, you may have a point, but it doesn't have anything to do with picking a Pizza place.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Chaosmancer, post: 9079665, member: 6801228"] Yes, I was seriously defending my choice of using Everest as an example, which you appeared to dismiss because you were fixated on the modern day. Again, you don't get to complain that you made your joke indistinguishable from your actual points, then chose not to clarify it when you realized I was choosing to take you seriously. What Math? Mountains being DC 15 isn't math. Me choosing to allow it to go up to 20 isn't math. The idea of taking 10 and using a passive score isn't math, it is a rule. Page 175 of the PHB. It is for repeated tasks, and spending days or weeks doing the same thing is a repeated task, isn't it? Also, not math. Is it DM Fiat? No more than it is DM Fiat that the Ranger has to roll Survival to navigate at all, since it is DM Fiat when a roll is called for. No more than advantage or disadvantage could be applied, since that is DM Fiat. Every part of a skill usage is "DM Fiat". Also, "the entire design philosophy" is... the rules of the game. Which, again, I stated that Rangers PER THE CURRENT RULES OF THE GAME are great explorers. Which you scoffed at, stating if I thought it was true it wasn't even worth discussing the ranger with me, because clearly I was so completely off-base. Yet, AGAIN, you point to the problem being the "design philosophy", the rules are the problem you have. You don't like how the rules work. Which is fine and a valid point... but not a counter-point to my assertion which is firmly WITHIN the rules. I'm not getting frustrated by that. I'm getting frustrated that you are deciding I'm wrong because you are ignoring the premise. It would be like someone saying "But if you have to eat at a Pizza Place, Domino's is good" and you saying, "No, you are wrong, the best fast food is Wendy's!" Sure, you may have a point, but it doesn't have anything to do with picking a Pizza place. [/QUOTE]

Verification