|
4 years ago ::
Aug 10, 2009 - 9:08AM
#891
|
|
|
Well, let him bring the evidence for his stance, and you try to get evidence for your stance, that Antimagic Fields were made for fluff reasons only.
Sounds fair enough.
If you have questions about 4th Edition - don't hesitate to ask me via PMs. Join the Community Monster Manual Group and help to collect a mass of monsters which will make your life as DM easier, and your life as Player pure hell!  I am a cartographer. You can find some of my maps in my profile, free for non-commercial use. Also, if you happen to like maps or make them yourselves, join into the Cartographers Group!
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Aug 10, 2009 - 9:16AM
#892
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
Well, let him bring the evidence for his stance, and you try to get evidence for your stance, that Antimagic Fields were made for fluff reasons only.
Sounds fair enough.
Nope. It doesn't work that way. One person(not Micha) is stating an opinion. You don't have to prove an opinion. One person(Micha) is claiming their opinion is a fact. If you're going to make a claim that your opinion is a fact, you have to be able to back it up with proof.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Aug 10, 2009 - 9:17AM
#893
|
Date Joined:
Apr 17, 2008
|
Nope. It doesn't work that way. One person(not Micha) is stating an opinion. You don't have to prove an opinion. One person(Micha) is claiming their opinion is a fact. If you're going to make a claim that your opinion is a fact, you have to be able to back it up with proof.
It's self evident.
Okay. Thac0 was put in for only fluff.
Classes with varying Hit Dice, and attack bonuses are put in only for fluff.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Aug 10, 2009 - 9:26AM
#894
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
It's self evident.
It's an assumption. Pure and simple. Unless you can back it up with proof, it will never be anything more than your opinion.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Aug 10, 2009 - 10:40AM
#895
|
Date Joined:
Jul 22, 2008
|
Micha please understand this time at least, max and I are not the enemy, we are just trying to keep things objective.
I m not even saying that you are wrong, only that you do need a valid source to support your claim.
because if you do not give one, it`s just your opinion, and sorry for me is not as evident as you make it sound.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Aug 10, 2009 - 10:11PM
#896
|
Date Joined:
Jan 28, 2007
|
Gone off topic again. If some wishes to continue the Anti-Magic Field discussion I suggest a new thread.
|
|
|
