|Aelryinth RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16|
|1 person marked this as a favorite.|
Aelryinth wrote:If you preface everything you said with "This might not be RAW, but this is how we play it", then there is no argument.
My argument is RAW. Prove me wrong using the RAW, and I will tell you you are right and I am wrong. Don't strawman me.BigNorseWolf wrote:And big Norse wolf is actually being fairly patient with you, he's just frustrated... he's been pretty good so far, actually.
No, he is not. He is an online bully who thinks he can shout me down instead of finding real rules to defeat a position. If he thinks I am simply factually wrong, he could just stick to the facts.
Personally, I think he is being verbally abusive because he doesn't believe his own arguments, but somehow feels threatened by my idea. Whether or not this is the case, his spamming the thread with his ad hominem attacks weakens his own position by turning this from a rules-based debate into an online bullying incident.
And it has no place on an advice thread.
And there's the thing.
Your argument is not RAW. Your argument is wordbending the RAW to fit your view.
So now you have to argue that yours is right without wordbending, and you're not doing it.
Which means you are not making an argument, you are trying to force an opinion on the rest of us, who are noting your facts don't match up. And you're getting hostile because we aren't accepting your interpretation or opinion as RAW.
So, you're probably best to let this drop. I can't think of any table that would accept your argument that something affecting your UA strike here is actually totally affecting the Nat Attack over there, nor would I call natural attacks going secondary a sudden 'effect'...I'd just call it a rule.