Read the very last point first so you don't accidentally waste your time.
Just because you plan to dump the conversation doesn't give you a pass to say whatever you want without being called on it.
No, that makes it exactly what an equalizer is. It can at best bring a negative up to zero, no further.
Nullfiying the ability of a creature is not an equalizer. It makes them weaker than they were before. It doesn't equalize, but rather puts the playing field in your favor.
Versatility at the expense of power translates roughly to second-rate at everything.
"Jack of all trades, master of none, though oft better than master of one." Being excellent at one thing isn't always better than being good at many things.
By a small margin.
Depends on the scenario. While you may almost always only need one specific power for the job, having access to more options ensures that you are more likely to have the one for the job. While more encounter powers are great, more at-will abilities ensures a better likelihood that a character has a reliable multi-use attack for the job.
No, my argument is. I don't use my credentials to win arguments (note how I directed you to the CO board for a full demonstration of the value of cantrips instead of saying "I say so, so nyeh!").
Which is just as valid a statement as anytime someone who hates 4E talks about his buddies at the FLGS and how they are proof the game is failing. While some of the things I do agree with (I've agreed since the very beginning that Prestidigitation and Ghost Sound are minutia in game terms), a large portion of the remainder seems to be a catchall declarative that since part is useless, all are useless.
Actually, what you said is the distance value. In total darkness your sight range is 0. With darkvision, it increases. That's a numeric value, expressed in squares. Q.e.d.
No, it's not. It's advantage is best expressed in a binary declaration. Either a character can see in total darkness, or it can't. The difference between darkvision and other vision types in total darkness is the same as the difference between having any form of vision in any outdoor environment during the day or being blind. One can see, the other cannot.
Wait a minute. Light only targets objects (and squares, which will do nothing). Your stealth disruptor just failed.
So long as it has a weapon, armor, a piece of jewelry, or even an arrow stuck within its flesh from an attack made by the ranger, you can target it by proxy. Creatures wielding equipment are in enough supply that the cantrip has more than little potential.
Except those are all actual combat bonuses that don't require your DM to allow them to happen.
Mage Hand, of all the cantrips, is the one that has definitive abilities which don't need to be adjudicated by a DM. It's properties are spelled out plain as day. Under the condition that a DM decides that invisible light sources are no longer light sources, Mage Hand still has a vast amount of utility, and a definite degree of combat utility.
It's pretty damn clear that they can't be abused. Your Light trick just failed, and the Mage Hand trick is less than impressive thus far.
Also, I'm saying they can't, not that they won't. Even if they wanted to, they couldn't.
Actually, Light failing in the manner I've been speaking of works only under the tenets that your encounter involves no monsters with weapons, armor or jewelry, and nobody has a bow or crossbow with which to create a target otherwise. That's a lot of prerequisites to eliminate. Whether or not you think the ability to interact with objects from a distance of 5 squares as a minor action seems moot. You have your own preset ideas of what is worthwhile in the game and nothing else exists outside of that limited (albeit majority) component of the game.
No, the only thing I have is "They do suck." Which they do.
I don't think your opinion would bother me in the slightest if you admitted that it was only your opinion. It's your attempt at passing it off as objective fact that annoys me
I'm using "comb your hair and move a chair" as a synecdoche. Technically, you may not be able to comb your hair, but that really only serves to make it an exaggeration as well.
And if you were less insultive about
You backpedaled and insulted me. The worst I've done is **** on your argument. You insulted me in turn. At least I stick to the point (and the CoC).
Name one time I directly stated anything about you beyond calling you an elitist (which you've somewhat self-declared, as you yourself stated that optimizers such as yourself are the only ones with opinions that matter). It hasn't happened. On the other hand....[INDENT]
You'd have to be a butt****ing moron to consider that more useful than even a single point of damage.
[/INDENT]Sounds like something that is a generalized insult to everyone in this forum who disagrees with you. It's probably against the CoC as well.
And I implied that they do. What with their constant mathematical exercises and strict adherence to the rules.
Anyone can use constant mathematical exercises. This isn't something that only optimizers do. I spent a good while finding every single 22-point array in the game, which is a definite mathematical exercise, and not something that necessarily is part and parcel to optimization (considering you only need a few worthwhile arrays).
So I take it that it wasn't powergamers who managed to turn a character into a loaf of bread?
Do you honestly feel that the game should be balanced to handle characters specifically built within the constraints of the game to intentionally weak? Do you really feel that encounters should be structured so they are handled by a 20th level cleric with negative hit points, or are you just saying it for the sake of argument?
Except Knight's Move grants a free move action. Do you know what you can do with a free move action?
Impossible to Catch makes you invisible with all the bonuses that come with it.
It doesn't have any numbers. In accordance with your overall statement, it has no bonus, no penalty, no damage, no healing, and is therefore useless.
A move action as a free action is in the same boat as increasing the range of a minor action with a maximum distance of 1 square by 4, or turning two minor actions into one, or interacting with something at infinite range. It does something neat, but doesn't apparently fit your criteria.
I'm done with you. Have the last word if you want. Declare victory. I don't care.
This isn't about victory, and it never was. It's about finding a balanced manner by which cantrips could be placed into feats. We were actually coming up with a compromise between our exchanges (especially when we started talking multiclass feats), but it's hard to talk reasonably with you when your posts are covered in sardonic remarks.