Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Midknightsun" data-source="post: 3764755" data-attributes="member: 46459">Okay, pardon my interjection, and here's my take for what it may be worth:Why is it a nonsequitur?  I mean, you can work only with what you know thus far and still have your entire argument negated, or severly damaged, with any new info that comes out.  How is the fact that much of the new system is unknown not relevant to the argument?  Maybe I'm not getting it, but I've read as much of this thread as my eyes can bear. Perhaps you could explain more simply?I don't know about others, but I also dislike Vancian magic.  That comes NOT from 4e, that comes from seeing its effects in previous editions, and well, not liking what I've seen.  Transferring it to 4e would make it different how? . .  when history has shown, to those who have seen it in previous editions and NOT liked it, that another way could be better. No.  ASSUME and you, as they say, make an ASS out of U and ME.  Or at the very least your arguments are standing on variably shifting ground.  Good luck with that, really, I mean it.  I personally am under no illusions that they may not achieve what they aim for, at least on all fronts.  But since many posts seem to be delving into logical points, I'd like to also bring up the assumption of something unprovable (which it is at this point) and how well that usually goes over in logical circles.Everybody can have opinions, of course, there is a saying about those as well.  However, there are differences between the hyperbolic examples you have been giving and what would actually be sent forth.  Degree of plausibility does matter with examples, as anything taken to an extreme can break pretty much any argument, making all this banter pretty pointless.</blockquote>

Verification