Plebian wrote:yes, which you linked to a sexual euphemism involving fellatio, making you pretty terrible objectively
And you still don't know what objective actually means.
Plebian wrote:just want you to read this real quick
I just want you to read this real quick: "In the sense that." Qualifiers are important. They change the meaning of sentences.
Kaelik wrote:
They are equivalent, in the sense that I disagree with both of them about subjective matters of opinion. Godwining is nothing about association fallacy, because Godwinning has nothing to do with whether or not the comparison to Hitler is accurate or not, only it's existence.
Plebian wrote:woops! there you are with your subjective opinions -> facts thing again!
Once again, that PCs are capable of doing fewer things is objectively true. You spend half the time in your posts bragging about all the things that 4e characters can't do that 3e PCs could. It is objectively true that they do less things. That's fine. You think it's a good thing, I think it's a bad thing. It's true either way.
Plebian wrote:player agency is in no way reduced because the degree that a player effects the story is up to the DM; if it's a good DM there will always a mutable, ever-changing story influenced by the decisions of the players. if it's a shitty DM it'll be a railroad.
Unless you know, you follow the rules, then PCs can do things that the rules allow them to do.
Plebian wrote:cool, all of that can be done in 4e but I don't blame you being unfamiliar with the system. also a lot of it is much less of a story and much more of a description of combat, but I also don't blame you for being stupid and mistaking mechanics for story.
No, you can't do that in 4e. Cite how you would do those things in 4e.
And yes, what occurs in combat is in fact part of the story. Stories don't fade to black as soon as people start casting spells and then fade back in with results, but never tell you how they got those results.
Plebian wrote:but I like how you're backpedaling there it suits you
How the fuck am I backpedaling? We don't talk about 4e when you fuckers are not around. As evidence, we have a single 16 page thread about 4e for two years, mostly created to direct stupid trolls away from productive threads, like this one theoretically could have been, and in the mean time we produced thousands of pages of 3e discussion.
Plebian wrote:I mean I guess it makes sense that you can only have fun if you're throwing fistfulls of dice and referencing a dozen-page character sheet and making the game harder for everyone involved,
Um...Most classes don't have fistfulls of dice, and I've never seen a character sheet for a Tome game that was twelve pages long (or hell, even a 3.5 one) since Tome reduces bookkeeping.
But yes, we actually do make it easier for everyone involved by simplifying the game down to easier, reduced options that are all approximately equal in validity.
Plebian wrote:but damn man don't expect everyone or even a small portion of gamers to actually support this
Um... Once again, I don't. I have never asked you to approve of anything I do or write. The most I have ever asked of you is to go the fuck away and talk about how shitty we are for liking things you don't like with your friends were you don't get in the goddam way. I do not go to /tg/ or rpg.net or EnWorld or WotC and talk about my rules, or tell them they are wrong for liking 4e. I leave them the hell alone, and spend most of my time in a community that does in fact like the things I like.
Plebian wrote:while those are the more obviously broken spells, but what about stat damage spells that don't allow a save? or do you just purposefully ignore
They are not a problem. Ignoring how easy stat damage immunity is to get, Ray of Stupidity is pretty much not a problem, because it only works on animals or Wizards at all without taking multiple actions or significant metamagic. And in either case, is single target, and not much more powerful than other comparable options.
Greater Shivering Touch is touch range, and that adds it's own series of difficulties to landing it, and is harder to metamagic, and is against a stat that lots of people have higher than Int, and is still only single target.
Plebian wrote:and ranged touch attacks that damage stats are just the tip of the iceberg so far as broken casters go, one would think with all your professed knowledge of 3e you would know this.
I know plenty about the good old "broken casters" since I've invented half of them, but very few of them are the spells specifically, and most are stacking other effects onto them using the system, the system that has undergone substantial changes.
Not that you would understand what is or isn't broken, since you whine about the spell invisibility.
Plebian wrote:you seriously see nothing wrong, balance-wise, with a stealth class that gets a die of SA every level, can HiPS at 3, gets Nondetection at 5 or whatever, and so on
No. None. Except that it doesn't get SA, but whatever.
Plebian wrote:yeah, you just gotta choose between the different stances, remember to use them, remember which ones do what because they're assigned stupid random names, remember not to fall for the trap ones and to take the obviously broken ones, etc etc etc it's a bad class
If you can't remember to spend a swift action every round, then 4e is too complex for you, they have minor actions too. You use one and only one style each round. There are no trap styles or broken styles, as they are all balanced to a specific point. They are good for different combat styles or character styles, as they should be.
And yes, as I said, when you level up, you have to actually think for several whole seconds about the operative combination of abilities in a style. But you know what, I don't think asking people to think a little bit is too demanding when they level up their character.
And yes, in combat, you have to pick which one is best to use, but that's what happens when all your abilities aren't the same damn thing.
(except what you said about the assassin, which is literally objectively wrong)