Aroo?! Oh wow! Hey there! Long time no chat! 
Another reason it's still going - aside from actually wanting to hear the man out. Is that it's been fairly civil. Most of our rules here about thread locking are a derivative of the ENworld grandmother rule. It comes down to 'be nice'. (Which lately is falling to the wayside a bit, so folks on both sides - be gentle here, you're starting to slip.) We're trying to be fair and let the sides get things resolved. I also figure most of the posters here are innately intellegent enough to just - no longer bother posting when/if the thread gets boring.
Additionally, this thread being the latest of about 5 other threads that eventually slid into the discussion as well - it makes sense to just leave it open so we don't have to watch yer Another one start up - or someone else's tread get hijacked by a random statement.
And just to emphasize this further, I have only closed one thread ever on this forum, and I'm not sure any others have been closed at all (if there have been, it's not been a whole lot and probably not in RPG Discussion which I follow pretty close). The biggest reason is that I REALLY REALLY don't want to ever close threads.
Yeah, you and most everyone else may find it useless, but if it's civil, I have no reason to see it closed. When it's gotten close to being uncivil we've been quick with the warnings, and thankfully it's slid away from that line of discussion.
Speaking of which, calling Xan a "little twit" is out of line, eldersphinx. Please ease up on that sort of talk on future posts, k?
Lastly, I do have to comment on those who feel this thread is useless and wish it would go away - it takes two to tango, my friends (and I will confess to including myself in that as well).
Lastly, I do have to comment on those who feel this thread is useless and wish it would go away - it takes two to tango, my friends (and I will confess to including myself in that as well).
If it were completely useless, there wouldn't be any rules to back up my position, but since there is, you have to at least concede that there is something of value to my position - if only because the rules are inconsistent in this regard.
But Xan, there isn't anything to back up your absolute statement. There is evidence to back up a statement claiming a tendency against drawbacks, but we've clearly shown that there are a few feats with them (your level of satisfaction with said feats, as well as any supposed intent behind them is irrelevent.), which is enough to open the door. Besides, weren't you complaining about a lack of rules that set PS3E apart from standard D&D in an earlier thread? Why can't Faction specific feats that may contain drawbacks at least partly fill that role? I thought the whole reason behind your templates was to enforce penalties for belief. Why can't this be done with feats? Why is it poor game design to use a feat that is initially more disadvantageous than advantageous, when it is a requirement for greater future power?
There you go, a WotC published Feat with an inherent disadvantage built in.
As an aside, isn't it ironic that with this Feat, the more likeable you are (ie the higher your Cha. modifier), the more likely people can't stand your presence.
Looks more like something I would inflict on a PC rather than let them select.
Why? Seriously, you think that faction abilities & drawbacks should be contained in feats when they're comparable to those of races? Not only that, but the use of madness as a drawback in a feat flies in the face of d20 material that has it as built-in class feature.
No it doesn't. Many classes get bonus feats as class features and many feats replicate and build on class features.
Class features are ussually, but by no means always, more potent and usually, but again by no means always, more specialized than feats.
Finaly, tactics has nothing to do with wether or not the feat in question is broken. This is a tangential argument.
I just wanted to point this out to you...
The discussion of armies in ths book use a modern military structure and rank heirarchy because that information is at least somewhat familiar to most players and should be easy to incorporate into the game. - p. 15, column 2
Guerrilla warfare has been a military strategy for centuries... For example, The Cossack calvalry dispersed ionto guerrilla units...in 1812... The devinitive treatise on guerrilla warfare was written by Mao Tse Tung in 1937, based heavily on Sun Tzu's Art of War... - p. 16, column 2
More often, strategic planning provides countless mundane benefits to the army... - p. 70, column 2
Combat Medic - p. 99, column 2
Teamwork benefits are based on the notion that once you've spent time training with your comrades, you respond instinctively to subtle chnges in body languages and can antidcipate your comrades' likely moves. - p. 116, column 2
Camouflage netting is made in a specific size and to match a specific climate/terrain type. - p. 95, sidebar
Would you care to reconsider your above statements? And why does some of this seem familiar to me...
Class features are ussually, but by no means always, more potent and usually, but again by no means always, more specialized than feats.
Show me a WotC d20 book where madness isn't a class feature and is built into a feat.
There probably isn't a feat with madness as a part of it. What's your point? There doesn't need to be. PW doesn't have to do everything just like WotC does. Each campaign setting changes the rules in little ways, as it applies to the setting.
No. No one wants to reconsider the statements, because the statement "this is a tangential argument" is absolutely true. Prove your point, or give up. Don't respond to this with a "I've already proven it, read my posts," because you really haven't. Convince us you're right. Or, failing that, convince someone you're right.
Not to mention that you're citing Heroes of Battle in order to prove this:
Who wins? The mage if the mage has any sense at all and is played at all well because what mage would allow themselves to be surrounded by those 16 4th level fighters at once? What epic mage would NOT have contingencies on? What epic mage would not have any plans and not have their eyes open to see the fighters coming?
Basically you are saying that if ambushed and trapped an epic mage can be defeated by many low level characters. The thing is Xan that kind of thing is a plot related point and a character should be defeatable if they are properly ambushed.
Do you want real world examples of how your statement is wrong?
You are suggesting that real world rules apply to a fantasy setting?
All military tactics are the same now as they were then, only the technology has changed how and when you can use them.
Don't even try to accuse me of misrepresenting your side. I couldn't make this stuff up if I tried. Those quotes are full posts, with the single exception of the first, which has been abridged.
Well. I was going to reply to Xan, but you did it for me, and did it well.
So thank you Rhys
PS: Xan, you quoted HoB which in your very quote it said that it used modern terminology and tactics because they were more familiar to players. This does not mean that modern terms and tactics are better for discussion of medieval or ancient battles, let alone fantasy ones. It merely means that the authors of HoB did not want to teach an unfamiliar set of terms and tactics. In fact, because it is even mentioned there is the implication that terms and tactics OTHER than modern military ones would be more appropriate for use if the audiance was just as familiar with them. There again this part of the argument is tangential.
Except for the fact that when you read through the book, you'll notice that all the tactics are "modern" tactics, which you claimed D&D doesn't use.
Actually, I have several people who not only know what I'm doing, but why, and fully support my methods of this argument as well as the system I've proposed. Why are you trying to push me to write up my argument in full with just over 50 days before my deadline when it's already been mentioned that I'll be working on this after my 8/1/05 deadline? Is it too much to ask for you to accept this, or are you afraid that if I bring my full attention to bear on this subject you won't be able to refute my arguments?
Except for the fact that when you read through the book, you'll notice that all the tactics are "modern" tactics, which you claimed D&D doesn't use.
Yes. It said that they would use modern tactics in what you quoted in order to make it easier to explain what they are doing. Just because they use modern tactics for explanation does not mean anything about weather or not modern tactics should be used for design.
People who we have not heard from, seen, or probably met before support you. Good for you, but they mean nothing to this argument unless they can directly contribute to the discussion.
We are not pushing you. We are saying that your arguments so far have not been either full enough, clear enough, or what most often seems to be the case Validly reasoned enough for us to accept. In order for us to accept your point you will have to make better arguments; however given the length of this discussion and your prior arguments it does not seem likely that you have better arguments to give.
We are aware that you are working under a deadline, but also realize that deadlines are common and don't mean anything. We all have deadlines. Just saying you have one doesn't give you any pull. Just like saying you have a book or just saying you have military rank. Now if you cite your book or use personal experiances and show how they are relevent to the discussion then if the reasoning and argument is sound and valid then we may accept that argument. Simply stating that you have those things does nothing, but possably make you look like a braggart which in turn hurts your credability.
Simply stating that you can win the debate, but elect not to because your bookwriting schedule is so terribly busy doesn't impress anyone, nor does your quasi-threat of bringing your [booming voice]"full attention to bear on this subject"[/booming voice]. We're desperately hoping you will, in fact, because this tangent about tactics has nothing to do with the actual debate, which was settled against your favor long ago. Hopefully, your full attention will be brought to bear on that subject and this will be over.
How about bringing your full attention to bear on the reality that D&D can and does fully accept feats that include drawbacks as an occasional feature? Incidentally, this tangent to which you are clinging was already completely dismissed in this post, which you've handily skipped over.
How about bringing your full attention to bear on the reality that D&D can and does fully accept feats that include drawbacks as an occasional feature? Incidentally, this tangent to which you are clinging was already completely dismissed in this post, which you've handily skipped over.
Because, Rhys, I discount anything you say because you're blinded by everything in front of you and the truth as to who's really running this argument, how, and whether or not you understand is, frankly at this point irrevalent, because I've obfuscated my points enough to protract this for the benefit of my research. You don't have to like anything I do, but sadly, you fall for every logical trap I've placed.
Then concede.
Is this ultimate intellectual form of "nyah-nyah-nah-nah-nyah"? You can't concede a point, so suddenly you're running some sort of experiment on posters, so you can claim superiority by claiming "I was never in this for the argument itself" so you can come out on top and smarter than everyone else?
I've seen some long shots in my time on internet forums, but this is up in urban legend territory. Congrats!
I highly doubt either side would be satisfied by the other side conceding out of frustration. Becuase then when this topic came up again, this forum would be used as evidence, which would be followed by a "Yes, but..." sentence.
Yes we are quite proud of this pile.
Pardon? You're claiming that this entire thing has been a trick for "research"? So, basically, now that you've been completely proven wrong and have given up even trying to debate (the last post did promise irrefutable arguments), you claim that your "position" has been a ruse? Come on, put Xan back on.
You began your last address of me with "because..." when I didn't ask you "why".
You began your last address of me with "because..." when I didn't ask you "why".
If it is research it isn't REAL research.
Seriosly. Real research has to go through certain procedures, such as a IRB (internal reveiw board) and those participants in research have to be notified of the fact that they are being observed.
PS: This is also tangential and really has nothing to do with the point of this discussion. Xan you still need to answer to questions raised over how you can deny that Mage Slayer does not fit the critiria for a feat that shows precedent for having a built in drawback.
You began your last address of me with "because..." when I didn't ask you "why".
LOL.....If that's what you think...keep thinking that. I told you, when I'm done with my project, I'll be writing up my argument in full. It'll probably end up being in the neighborhood of 20 pages though. Are you able to handle that?
You began your last address of me with "because..." when I didn't ask you "why".
If it is research it isn't REAL research.
Seriosly. Real research has to go through certain procedures, such as a IRB (internal reveiw board) and those participants in research have to be notified of the fact that they are being observed.
PS: This is also tangential and really has nothing to do with the point of this discussion. Xan you still need to answer to questions raised over how you can deny that Mage Slayer does not fit the critiria for a feat that shows precedent for having a built in drawback.
Yes I have, and you didn't accept it because it came from Sage Advice, which showed clearly that it works against all spellcasters and is not meant to be used specifically by spellcasters.
I've tried running this statement through my Jargon Translator several times, and it just keeps alternating between "misdirection" and "trolling". Huh, funny that.
"Well, you see the problem with the feat in question is... LOOK!! A PENGUIN!!"
Just kidding, of course, Xan. It's nice to see you admit to deliberately misdirecting the conversation into tangents and purposeful confusion & vagueness in order to drag in out. You have 23 pages (and growing) to prove how easy it is to get people to keep debating something that even they think is aleady answered. Honestly - no flame intended - I am impressed. You've played this thread extremely well, and I'm sure even your admission of purposefully dragging it out won't stop the argument. People just can't walk away from a debate.
Edit: Guess my post made it 23 pages. Oh, and don't take this post as coming from the WEBMASTER ON HIGH or any of that. Just a forum user who is getting increasingly amused at both sides of this "debate".
Power Attack isn't meant to be used by wizards, but they can still take it. Further, you failed to address the fact that XPH provided feats that are specifically prohibited to classes who shouldn't be using them, while Mage Slayer does not include such restrictions.
What about assasins, people?
They ( kinda) fighters. Evil, tricky fighters that refuse to play fair, but fighters none the less.
Now, Mage slayer seems to be a gream feat for an assasin, because sneaking up on the arch mage and sneak attacking him is a great stratagy for an assasin, but then you have to take that fireball to the face. Not fun.
WHowever, with mage slayer, an assasin would have an easier time. So this feat has a major benifit to assasins, not only for the class, but also for their line of work when used to attack just about any form of spellcaster ( and considering the only base classes that dont use magic are fighters, barbarians, rouges, and the psionic guys, theirs bounmd to be quite a few magic users who someone wants dead).
Now, I would like to remind you that assasins cast arcane spells. Spells taht they kinda need to do their job. You want to sneak past the guards, knowing that your invisability spell isn't going to last as long as everyone else in ther party? Disadvantage.
Yes, I doubt a class like wizard, sorceror, or any other class that had not other defense then magic would take this feat. But there are plenty of classes (paladin, ranger, assasin, blackguard...) that may definatly consider taking this feat, find it useful vs spellcasters, and take the penalty.
You began your last address of me with "because..." when I didn't ask you "why".
LOL.....If that's what you think...keep thinking that. I told you, when I'm done with my project, I'll be writing up my argument in full. It'll probably end up being in the neighborhood of 20 pages though. Are you able to handle that?
Can we take that statement as your indirect way of saying you're giving up trying to legitimize your "arguments," as you've run out of reasonable lines of logic and have resorted to outlandish fabrications?
You began your last address of me with "because..." when I didn't ask you "why".
LOL.....If that's what you think...keep thinking that. I told you, when I'm done with my project, I'll be writing up my argument in full. It'll probably end up being in the neighborhood of 20 pages though. Are you able to handle that?
Can we take that statement as your indirect way of saying you're giving up trying to legitimize your "arguments," as you've run out of reasonable lines of logic and have resorted to outlandish fabrications?
Actually, I'm dead serious. When all is said and done, my argument will be posted in the form of a research paper. What I find most humorous is that you respond to everything I've said, no matter how asinine it's been just so I could milk you for more information so I didn't have to go look it up myself while I finish this book. I have a little under 200 pages to go and 54 days left.
What's really humorous is that I even got Ken because I was aware of Skip Williams' posts on game mechanics on the WotC website. The fact that you want answers now Rhys only makes this all the more enjoyable for me because I can keep feeding you with half-cocked ideas to keep you talking and doing the research for me.
Then concede.
You need help, Xan. You really do.
Then concede.
You need help, Xan. You really do.
Actually, your cause is the one that needs help. Either concede or wait for me to reveal my cards.
Then concede.
You need help, Xan. You really do.
Actually, your cause is the one that needs help. Either concede or wait for me to reveal my cards.
Before you reveal your cards, make sure you're playing with a full deck. :roll:
Please... You can't even give me credit for making an effort to appease you with a well thought-out argument when I have the time to present it in a formal format. Why should I be swayed by a purely emotional reponse to the fact that you haven't shaken my views?
Well I'd also like to add that if Xan is doing research to use in a serios research progect, commercial academic or otherwise that if he has already opened himself up to some serios complaints due to not sharing the fact that he was observing in the role of researcher the members of these boards and if he publishes he could rightly be on the losing end of even more complaints and lawsuits.
Disclosure, Research Ethics and Internal Reveiw Boards are serios matters. Please don't joke about them, Xan because someone might take you seriosly and you could get into a lot of trouble.
LOL!!!! Where do you people come up with these conclusions?
Please... You can't even give me credit for making an effort to appease you with a well thought-out argument when I have the time to present it in a formal format. Why should I be swayed by a purely emotional reponse to the fact that you haven't shaken my views?
If you're so busy, why are you wasting time here? Get back to work! After all, you've only got 54 days left to finish that book! Then, after that, you've got to prepare your 'research paper' on why those mean PW people won't agree with you. Let's see, it's June 10th now... so we should be hearing back from you with a 'well thought-out' argument sometime in August (maybe September, depending on how long it actually takes you to prepare this well thought-out argument). Hopefully, you'll use a spell-checker, 'cause there's nothing worse than an English major who can't spell.
You began your last address of me with "because..." when I didn't ask you "why".
LOL.....If that's what you think...keep thinking that. I told you, when I'm done with my project, I'll be writing up my argument in full. It'll probably end up being in the neighborhood of 20 pages though. Are you able to handle that?
Wow 20 pages impressive. I'm reminded about something Einstien said when he was asked how he felt about a book being published about him titled "101 Scientists Against Einstien" "Why so many? If I am wrong then just one will do."
Weeee! This is fun! Way more fun than taking him seriously!
Nice going, Gerzel! Now he's going to think he's Einstein!
Ok then. Xan if you are telling the truth. I would like you to give your real name, the address where I can mail you, the adress and contact information of the Internal Reveiw board you are using, and the adress and contact information of the institution where you will be publishing this paper.
If this is real research Xan, you don't have a choise on this if you would like to keep any career as a researcher or stay in the institution for which you are doing research. If I am going to be used as a subject in your research, if real and not another attempt to deflect the idea that you are wrong, then I have the right to this information.
This is a formal request for contact information regarding your research in which I am apparently a subject.
Wow...I don't know whether I should just laugh now or wait until later because of the fact that you failed to comprehend my meaning when it was clear.
Ok then. Xan if you are telling the truth. I would like you to give your real name, the address where I can mail you, the adress and contact information of the Internal Reveiw board you are using, and the adress and contact information of the institution where you will be publishing this paper.
If this is real research Xan, you don't have a choise on this if you would like to keep any career as a researcher or stay in the institution for which you are doing research. If I am going to be used as a subject in your research, if real and not another attempt to deflect the idea that you are wrong, then I have the right to this information.
This is a formal request for contact information regarding your research in which I am apparently a subject.
Uh... you do realize his comment about using us for research just means that he is keeping us busy looking at books and websites to dig up facts so that he doesn't have to? He isn't researching *us*, he's just wasn't clear and hasn't corrected your misconceptions.
Ok, folks, so there isn't any more confusion: Xan is planning on finishing his current writing project, and when that is done, write up his argument about feats not having drawbacks (or whatever this was about 6 months ago) as a formal research paper to appease all those asking for a formal argument. THAT is what he is talking about.
Yes, Ken is correct. As such, I'm providing you a portion of a paper I did a few months ago and am demanding an apology for your incessent attacks and threats to turn me in when you misinterpreted my meaning.
Example of a research paper:
Who would have guessed that one of the founders of analytical psychology would have so much influence and come from such humble beginnings? Carl Gustav Jung was born in the Kesswil, Switzerland vicarage on July 26, 1875 to a poor country parson. At one point, he was a student of Sigmund Freud and was his champion to bring the science of psychology out of the realm of obscurity. Their friendship lasted until Jung’s theories took the two men in opposite directions. Despite his accomplishments in the field of psychotherapy, Jung’s life has been fraught with controversy in both his professional and private lives. In spite of his controversial approaches to psychology, the influence of Jung’s theories on archetypes and the collective unconsciousness have, without a doubt, had an impact not only on the realm of psychology, but in other sciences and in the ways people entertain themselves.
There once was a belief that the fate of the world rested in the safety of the sun. It takes, on average, 360 years from one solar eclipse to the next. Some cultures referred to this event as the dragon eating the sun. The name of the beast responsible for this cosmic event varied from one culture to the next, but its purpose was the same. The insatiable creature represented a threat to the culture, and was viewed as a harbinger of the end of the world. This is an example of how Jung viewed these similarities from disparate cultures separated by location and time is what makes them so profound.
To understand the complexities of Jung’s theories and how they can have such a far-reaching impact on the world of today, one has to look at the man himself and how it was that these theories developed. It was evident from the beginning that Jung had caught onto something fascinating. Deirdre Bair’s biography on Jung talks about how:
[Jung] had been interested in myth ever since Riklin wrote about fairy tails and now others were too. [Karl] Abraham announced that he was working on … symbolism and numerous analogies between dreams and myth. Freud joined in… Everyone, it seemed would publish on the subject while Jung was still chafing at how to begin. (151)
<This last piece is supposed to have a larger margin than the paragraph it's attached to, but it doesn't translate here.>
Uh... you do realize his comment about using us for research just means that he is keeping us busy looking at books and websites to dig up facts so that he doesn't have to? He isn't researching *us*, he's just wasn't clear and hasn't corrected your misconceptions.
Ok, folks, so there isn't any more confusion: Xan is planning on finishing his current writing project, and when that is done, write up his argument about feats not having drawbacks (or whatever this was about 6 months ago) as a formal research paper to appease all those asking for a formal argument. THAT is what he is talking about.
Oh right. Sorry, gave Xan too much academic credit in my mind. When I read it I thought he meant that his manipulations where for his reaserch (and thus a part of that research) not that they were just a silly ploy.
I do appalogize Xan, for taking you too seriosly.
I do appalogize Xan, for taking you too seriosly.
I have this really great book for you to read, if you want to understand what it is that I do to have made you do most of the work for me in finding references that I didn't have time to look for myself. It's a book that was written around 400 B.C. called The Art of War. Don't know if you're familiar with the principles of it or not, but it deals with obfuscation and simplicity.
Hmm. Seems like Xan apparently has me on ignore here too