|
4 years ago ::
Mar 23, 2009 - 11:29AM
#31
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2009
|
I'm glad - multiple opinions on stuff is good for everyone. I don't really see us as competitors, rather as co-researchers or something. Thanks for the reference.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Mar 23, 2009 - 1:05PM
#32
|
Date Joined:
Jan 30, 2005
|
I gotta say, there are some pretty telling assumptions in this guide thus far
- You assume Sorcerer's don't attack Fort when *A LOT* of their powers attack Fort
- You choose to ignore the FAQ which says Weapon Powers can not be used with Implement attacks
- You assume the Level 2 Utility which swaps your resistances is pointless, when it is actually really good
There are more but those are the glaring examples. I don't want to be rude, but I gotta say, your guide starts off on a really bad footing here.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Mar 23, 2009 - 1:42PM
#33
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2009
|
Sticks128 - I think you need to look up the definition of 'assumption.' What I did was analysis.
1.) At Wills that attack fort: 2/5 1 Encounters: 2/5 1 Dailies: 1/4 3 Encounters: 2/5 5 Dailies: 2/5 7 Encounters: 1/2 9 Dailies: 3/4 (obvious outlier)
The real NAD that Sorcs focus on is Reflex. While a penalty to AC is good for weapons-based characters who only target AC, a kicker that only applies to 2/5 of your powers most of the time isn't wonderful. And I didn't say they don't target fort, I said they don't always target fort.
2.) I stated my reasons as to why this is so, and I don't think that I'm the only one who has taken this stance. If there's enough of a consensus that an analysis with that ruling would be more beneficial, I will remove it and change the related entries accordingly, which honestly doesn't change much.
3.) It would be pointless if you could force each attack to be a certain element (which is what frost dagger does). This is a direct result of #2. Also, you provide no support as to why it's good. If you want me to seriously consider your opinion, you need to provide a reason for the alteration.
Honestly, it sounds like you're a proponent of the FAQ and are taking out your frusteration on me, which is unfair. In my experience, when people allude to more problems that they didn't feel like mentioning, they really mean that they don't actually have any more. If you do, mention them and I will consider them. Otherwise, yes, you were quite rude and could have easily phrased your comments better. Here are examples:
-I feel like Fort is a more common NAD than you're giving it credit for, and thus powers that lower a target's Fort are actually better than you suggest. *provides numbers*
-I think that it would be more beneficial for you to stick with what Wizards has said officially, rather the alternative.
-Elemental Shift is actually quite good, becaues *provides reason*.
Care to mention more of these examples? I'd be happy to know what they are and either change it, or defend my reasoning. Unfortunately, I can't do this with vague statements and mild-mannered attacks. Please don't assume that I'm an idiot just because I'm new.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Mar 23, 2009 - 2:07PM
#34
|
Date Joined:
Jan 30, 2005
|
Sticks128 - I think you need to look up the definition of 'assumption.' What I did was analysis.
1.) At Wills that attack fort: 2/5 1 Encounters: 2/5 1 Dailies: 1/4 3 Encounters: 2/5 5 Dailies: 2/5 7 Encounters: 1/2 9 Dailies: 3/4 (obvious outlier)
While this is true, I think you need to look at a breakdown here. Dragon Sorcerers focus on Close attacks. So, looking at it in that reality
At-Will - 0/1
Level 1 - (Encounter and Daily) - 0/3
Level 3 - 1/2
Level 5 - 1/1
Level 7 - 2/2
Level 9 - 1/1
Level 13 - 1/1
Level 15 - 0/1
Level 17 - 2/2
Level 19 - 0/0
So as you can see, once you get past Level 1, 80% of close attacks target Fort. I don't think you realized how many times a Dragon Sorcerer will want to target Fort when you wrote "Honestly, why did Wizards think that Dragon Sorcs would be targetting fort so much? They wrote the powers, they should know." That statement tells me that you are rather unaware of how important targeting Fort is to a Dragon Sorcerer.
The real NAD that Sorcs focus on is Reflex. While a penalty to AC is good for weapons-based characters who only target AC, a kicker that only applies to 2/5 of your powers most of the time isn't wonderful. And I didn't say they don't target fort, I said they don't always target fort.
You implied that Fort was rarely targted, when in reality, after Level 1, 8 of 10 Close attacks target Fort.
2.) I stated my reasons as to why this is so, and I don't think that I'm the only one who has taken this stance. If there's enough of a consensus that an analysis with that ruling would be more beneficial, I will remove it and change the related entries accordingly, which honestly doesn't change much.
The "concesus" is about 3 or 4 vocal guys who ar too stubborn to admit that the FAQ stops them from doing what they want to do. The FAQ is clear. They have just shut their ears and are yelling "LA LA LA LA LA I can't hear you!" To me, the rules should always be taken into account when writing a guide. I mean what good is a guide when you ignore some of the rules?
3.) It would be pointless if you could force each attack to be a certain element (which is what frost dagger does). This is a direct result of #2. Also, you provide no support as to why it's good. If you want me to seriously consider your opinion, you need to provide a reason for the alteration.
To be honest, I have no idea what you are trying to say. Are you trying to claim that making all of your attacks Cold with a Frost Dagger is pointless? Is CA and +5 damage to every attack pointless to you? I am honestly confused.
Honestly, it sounds like you're a proponent of the FAQ and are taking out your frusteration on me, which is unfair.
Actually, I hate the FAQ. I really fought it at first. I am a proponent of the rules though, and the rules are clear. What has made me happier is seeing PHB 2 where they are making Weapons for Implement classes that uses "Specific Ovverides General". This tells me they are not just shafting Implement wielders (again).
In my experience, when people allude to more problems that they didn't feel like mentioning, they really mean that they don't actually have any more. If you do, mention them and I will consider them. Otherwise, yes, you were quite rude and could have easily phrased your comments better. Here are examples:
-I feel like Fort is a more common NAD than you're giving it credit for, and thus powers that lower a target's Fort are actually better than you suggest. *provides numbers*
I would hope as the writer of a guide you would know the numbers. But since I apparently had to, I listed them above for you. 80% of close attacks past level 1.
-I think that it would be more beneficial for you to stick with what Wizards has said officially, rather the alternative.
Not sure what more you want from me here. I think you should stick with the rules, even if 3 or 4 vocal people don't like it.
-Elemental Shift is actually quite good, becaues *provides reason*.
Altering your damage resistance is really good? I thought this was a no-brainer. If you have Fire Resistance normally, and you fight some tough Frost Giants, it is good to alter your resistance to cold so you take less damage and do more damage with your cold spells.
Care to mention more of these examples? I'd be happy to know what they are and either change it, or defend my reasoning. Unfortunately, I can't do this with vague statements and mild-mannered attacks. Please don't assume that I'm an idiot just because I'm new.
I never called you an idiot, though it sounds like you are being very defensive. I gave my honest opinion that I think you were being short-sighted on a few things. The main two were choosing to ignore a very important rule and not knowing what defense half of the class attacks the most.
I apologize if you were offended, though I would note that being able to take criticism is an important skill.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Mar 23, 2009 - 2:40PM
#35
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2009
|
I think you need to read what I'm saying more carefully. I'll respond to each point separately, each point being a phrase that you quoted.
1.) This is a fair assessment for the Dragon Sorcerer, so I will up its rating. I wish you would have just made that argument in the first place. It still isn't automatically good, as Wild Mages have little use for it. Also, not having an at-will that targets fort would be bad, but you missed dragonfrost.
2.) Already covered.
3.) It's not really a rule, it's a supposed clarification of a rule that has no grounding in the source text. Since enough people have brought this up, however, I'll remove it and change what needs to be changed. The consensus that I was referring to was a consensus in this topic that I should remove the statement, not a consensus on the ruling of the FAQ. Please read my statement more carefully.
4.) Again, read my statement more carefully. If you are fighting an opponent who resists cold, and you have a dagger that changes your fire attack into a cold one, and you can already ignore cold resistance, then this power doesn't have an effect. As to me thinking that +2 to attack and +5 damage is pointless, I have no idea how you came to that conclusion from the given text.
5.) Items in the PHB2 are worded in such a way that specific doesn't override general. The Pact Bow is written that way. I've seen this clause be deployed erroneously many times on this board, and I believe that this is the case here as well. This is a separate argument that has another topic, but it's largely moot due to my concedence in #3.
6.) Again, please read what I wrote. Those lines with hyphens are described as examples of what you could have done to make the same comments in a more polite and helpful manner.
7.) My response to this is the same as what I stated against #6.
8.) For the same reason as #4, you do not necessarily do more damage to that opponent if you already can force a bypass of his resistance elsewhere. It does have some defensive merit in situations where the enemy has an obvious elemental affinity, but I feel that a net +1 to AC all of the time, as an encounter power rather than a daily, as well as having a deterrent to being attacked thrown in is a much more solid defense. Certainly not a "no-brainer."
9.) I understand how to take criticism - I'm actively trying to solicit constructive criticism. What you offered was destructive criticism. I'll point out several examples:
-You opened your argument with the sentence, "I gotta say, there are some pretty telling assumptions in this guide thus far." This is clearly an offensive stance. It says that according to a few specific reasons, the whole of the handbook is discredited. This falls squarely in the category of 'destructive criticism' by definition, as it attempts to cause the discontinuation of the handbook by suggesting that if I can't analyze these items correctly, there is no merit in continuing. I still haven't heard any other of these reasons that you suggested exist.
-By saying, "I don't want to be rude," you acknowledge that you are, in fact, being rude. You wouldn't have to make this qualifier if you felt that this was not the case.
-By saying, "I would hope as the writer of a guide you would know the numbers. But since I apparently had to, I listed them above for you," you were directly attacking my ability to perform mathematical analysis. What you were actually doing was bringing up a separate point entirely, but you perverted the statement to make me look less intelligent than I am.
I'm not offended. This is a random internet forum that is literally entirely impoersonal, but I'd rather you not discredit genuine analysis via a hastily formulated opinion and an improper tone.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Mar 23, 2009 - 2:42PM
#36
|
|
|
You're welcome to use my character image for eye candy. I made that image look 10x better imo. 
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Mar 23, 2009 - 2:55PM
#37
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2009
|
Thanks, that does look quite a bit clearer!
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Mar 23, 2009 - 2:56PM
#38
|
|
|
Absolutely. Draconic Spellfury is a feat that states that when you use as Sorcerer At-Will power, you gain temp HP equaled to your Strength modifier. I'll edit the statement to make it more clear as to where that came from.
Ah, I see. Thanks for answering! 
Cattle die, kindred die, every man is mortal. But the good name never dies of one who has done well.
Cattle die, kindred die, every man is mortal. But I know one thing that never dies: the glory of the great dead.
- Hávamál
D&D 4th Edition Bard builds: The Dashing Swordsman, The Master of Sound and Illusions, The Warrior Skald
Captain Morality! (No point in not having fun with it. ;-))
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Mar 23, 2009 - 3:03PM
#39
|
Date Joined:
Jan 30, 2005
|
snip
I have no desire to get into a long-winded debate with you, and now I really have no desire to help out your handbook.
I opened this thread and thought to myself "Cool, another guide, lets see what he sees that I have missed". I got about 5 minutes in and already saw many egregious errors, three of which I have pointed out.
You turned a few quick criticisms into a very long-winded argument, accusing me of attacking you (rather than assuming that maybe the internet distorts the intent of my message), and that tells me all that I need to know. Good luck on your handbook.
EDIT: One tip for the road though. You are very unclear when you type. Please try using the Quote function in the future (and using clearer language) and likely you won't be misunderstood as often. This is not an attack, it is genuine advice.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Mar 23, 2009 - 3:32PM
#40
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2009
|
This really is a simple process. I make claim x, person y dissents why they dissent with claim x. I will do one of two things - either accept the proposed changes or, if I disagree or fail to understand the dissention, I will defend my position and ask for elaboration. This is called rational discussion, and, according to Socrates, ends with the discovery of truth. You can call it whatever you want, but if you're not willing to engage in it, don't bother in the first place.
Please don't blame the internet for your tone - you control the phrasing of your comments. And again, you fail to mention any more specific errors, only referencing that supposedly many exist.
Also, "quick" is not a synonym for "vague," and "unclear" is not a synonym for "concise." I didn't want to bring up, but many of your misunderstandings were directly from failing to read some of my sentences. I'd be happy to point out which ones if you want
I'm really quite friendly, and I love to help people out, but I don't let vague or erroneous statements go uncontested, and I don't put up with underhanded insults, whether or not you meant them.
|
|
|
