Follow TV Tropes

Discussion History /

Go To

[013] Chuckg Current Version
Changed line(s) 5 from:
You accuse me of ignoring that Dzarumazh\'s \
to:
You accuse me of ignoring that Dzarumazh\\\'s \\\"innumerable\\\" Allies are accessible only to Dorian Hargrave while yourself ignoring that Dorian Hargrave has access to Changeling allies as well as mortals. So, congrats; he can, if he wants, bury you under an entire army of other Changelings. Which is what I\\\'ve been saying.

re: Defense -- well, that only makes it even worse for you. Your max possible defense is what, 5? So, after subtracting his penalties \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' your defense, his die pools are... 16 and 17. How much armor can you layer on top of that? Enough to reduce any of those die pools into single-digit #\\\'s, even, let alone to zero? Nope. Welcome to Obliterated, population: you.

As for the rest of your rules suggestions, they are in the territory of moving deck chairs on the Titanic as far as shifting the odds materially. Re: Firearms -- \\\'everybody I asked agrees with me\\\' is an argument right down there with \\\'the lurkers support me in e-mail\\\' as far as persuasiveness goes.

\\\"Reducing the entire conflict to pure combat with nothing but his true form assumes that your Storyteller is going to be a powergaming jackass.\\\"

No, its giving Dzarumazh credit for having the brains of a garden slug. Attacking him as Dorian Hargrave will result in him either shifting to his true form anyway, or leaving the fight. Why on Earth \\\'\\\'should\\\'\\\' he stick around and fight you to the death in his lesser, more vulnerable form? If Dzarumazh was your PC, would \\\'\\\'you\\\'\\\'?

But, most importantly, there is this:

\\\'\\\'\\\'Your complaint about Unholy Splendor in particular seems to boil down to \\\"what if my Storyteller is a dick?\\\"\\\'\\\'\\\'

No. My complaint about Unholy Spendor is this, and I will bold-text it so you do not miss it:

\\\'\\\'\\\'YOUR ONLY REALISTIC HOPE OF BEATING DZARUMAZH IS IF THE DM DELIBERATELY FORGETS TO HAVE DZARUMAZH USE HIS PRIMARY CROWD CONTROL POWER.\\\'\\\'\\\'

Unholy Splendor is on his character sheet. That its horribly broken and unfair is in fact the entire point of complaining about it; that is what CanonSue means, after all. So saying that \\\'its only a problem if the DM is a dick!\\\' is deliberately evading the point; it is not the DM who is the dick in this equation. He\\\'s just using the character as written. The dick was the dude who wrote the character up.

Which is the entire crux of the argument. Unless your DM deliberately shoots the fucker in the head with PlotInducedStupidity, and has it just skip using its best powers, your odds of winning drop down to \\\"pray for a miracle\\\" territory. Any monster that is nigh-impossible to beat by any PC party without truly ridiculous Wyrd 7+ twinking and/or deliberate DM nerfing of the monster is, by definition, CanonSue.

If you can\\\'t beat the thing without a DM gimme, then it ain\\\'t balanced.

So I am putting the entry back in.

Edit: \\\"Wait until the discussion is resolved?\\\" Um, define \\\"resolved\\\". Does that mean until we stop talking about it... or until you agree with it? Because the latter would be the same thing as giving you arbitrary veto power over everything I post. And, no. Just no.

Edit: Ahahaha, I just got edit banned. (snip flame bait)
Changed line(s) 5 from:
You accuse me of ignoring that Dzarumazh\'s \
to:
You accuse me of ignoring that Dzarumazh\\\'s \\\"innumerable\\\" Allies are accessible only to Dorian Hargrave while yourself ignoring that Dorian Hargrave has access to Changeling allies as well as mortals. So, congrats; he can, if he wants, bury you under an entire army of other Changelings. Which is what I\\\'ve been saying.

re: Defense -- well, that only makes it even worse for you. Your max possible defense is what, 5? So, after subtracting his penalties \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' your defense, his die pools are... 16 and 17. How much armor can you layer on top of that? Enough to reduce any of those die pools into single-digit #\\\'s, even, let alone to zero? Nope. Welcome to Obliterated, population: you.

As for the rest of your rules suggestions, they are in the territory of moving deck chairs on the Titanic as far as shifting the odds materially. Re: Firearms -- \\\'everybody I asked agrees with me\\\' is an argument right down there with \\\'the lurkers support me in e-mail\\\' as far as persuasiveness goes.

\\\"Reducing the entire conflict to pure combat with nothing but his true form assumes that your Storyteller is going to be a powergaming jackass.\\\"

No, its giving Dzarumazh credit for having the brains of a garden slug. Attacking him as Dorian Hargrave will result in him either shifting to his true form anyway, or leaving the fight. Why on Earth \\\'\\\'should\\\'\\\' he stick around and fight you to the death in his lesser, more vulnerable form? If Dzarumazh was your PC, would \\\'\\\'you\\\'\\\'?

But, most importantly, there is this:

\\\'\\\'\\\'Your complaint about Unholy Splendor in particular seems to boil down to \\\"what if my Storyteller is a dick?\\\"\\\'\\\'\\\'

No. My complaint about Unholy Spendor is this, and I will bold-text it so you do not miss it:

\\\'\\\'\\\'YOUR ONLY REALISTIC HOPE OF BEATING DZARUMAZH IS IF THE DM DELIBERATELY FORGETS TO HAVE DZARUMAZH USE HIS PRIMARY CROWD CONTROL POWER.\\\'\\\'\\\'

Unholy Splendor is on his character sheet. That its horribly broken and unfair is in fact the entire point of complaining about it; that is what CanonSue means, after all. So saying that \\\'its only a problem if the DM is a dick!\\\' is deliberately evading the point; it is not the DM who is the dick in this equation. He\\\'s just using the character as written. The dick was the dude who wrote the character up.

Which is the entire crux of the argument. Unless your DM deliberately shoots the fucker in the head with PlotInducedStupidity, and has it just skip using its best powers, your odds of winning drop down to \\\"pray for a miracle\\\" territory. Any monster that is nigh-impossible to beat by any PC party without truly ridiculous Wyrd 7+ twinking and/or deliberate DM nerfing of the monster is, by definition, CanonSue.

If you can\\\'t beat the thing without a DM gimme, then it ain\\\'t balanced.

So I am putting the entry back in.

Edit: \\\"Wait until the discussion is resolved?\\\" Um, define \\\"resolved\\\". Does that mean until we stop talking about it... or until you agree with it? Because the latter would be the same thing as giving you arbitrary veto power over everything I post. And, no. Just no.

Edit: Ahahaha, I just got edit banned. OK, so, basically, I guess it \\\'\\\'\\\'was\\\'\\\'\\\' \\\"because WonSab doesn\\\'t agree with what you wrote, you\\\'re not allowed to write it\\\". I wasn\\\'t aware that some pigs was more equal than other pigs around here.

Changed line(s) 5 from:
You accuse me of ignoring that Dzarumazh\'s \
to:
You accuse me of ignoring that Dzarumazh\\\'s \\\"innumerable\\\" Allies are accessible only to Dorian Hargrave while yourself ignoring that Dorian Hargrave has access to Changeling allies as well as mortals. So, congrats; he can, if he wants, bury you under an entire army of other Changelings. Which is what I\\\'ve been saying.

re: Defense -- well, that only makes it even worse for you. Your max possible defense is what, 5? So, after subtracting his penalties \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' your defense, his die pools are... 16 and 17. How much armor can you layer on top of that? Enough to reduce any of those die pools into single-digit #\\\'s, even, let alone to zero? Nope. Welcome to Obliterated, population: you.

As for the rest of your rules suggestions, they are in the territory of moving deck chairs on the Titanic as far as shifting the odds materially. Re: Firearms -- \\\'everybody I asked agrees with me\\\' is an argument right down there with \\\'the lurkers support me in e-mail\\\' as far as persuasiveness goes.

\\\"Reducing the entire conflict to pure combat with nothing but his true form assumes that your Storyteller is going to be a powergaming jackass.\\\"

No, its giving Dzarumazh credit for having the brains of a garden slug. Attacking him as Dorian Hargrave will result in him either shifting to his true form anyway, or leaving the fight. Why on Earth \\\'\\\'should\\\'\\\' he stick around and fight you to the death in his lesser, more vulnerable form? If Dzarumazh was your PC, would \\\'\\\'you\\\'\\\'?

But, most importantly, there is this:

\\\'\\\'\\\'Your complaint about Unholy Splendor in particular seems to boil down to \\\"what if my Storyteller is a dick?\\\"\\\'\\\'\\\'

No. My complaint about Unholy Spendor is this, and I will bold-text it so you do not miss it:

\\\'\\\'\\\'YOUR ONLY REALISTIC HOPE OF BEATING DZARUMAZH IS IF THE DM DELIBERATELY FORGETS TO HAVE DZARUMAZH USE HIS PRIMARY CROWD CONTROL POWER.\\\'\\\'\\\'

Unholy Splendor is on his character sheet. That its horribly broken and unfair is in fact the entire point of complaining about it; that is what CanonSue means, after all. So saying that \\\'its only a problem if the DM is a dick!\\\' is deliberately evading the point; it is not the DM who is the dick in this equation. He\\\'s just using the character as written. The dick was the dude who wrote the character up.

Which is the entire crux of the argument. Unless your DM deliberately shoots the fucker in the head with PlotInducedStupidity, and has it just skip using its best powers, your odds of winning drop down to \\\"pray for a miracle\\\" territory. Any monster that is nigh-impossible to beat by any PC party without truly ridiculous Wyrd 7+ twinking and/or deliberate DM nerfing of the monster is, by definition, CanonSue.

If you can\\\'t beat the thing without a DM gimme, then it ain\\\'t balanced.

So I am putting the entry back in.

Edit: \\\"Wait until the discussion is resolved?\\\" Um, define \\\"resolved\\\". Does that mean until we stop talking about it... or until you agree with it? Because the latter would be the same thing as giving you arbitrary veto power over everything I post. And, no. Just no.
Changed line(s) 5 from:
You accuse me of ignoring that Dzarumazh\'s \
to:
You accuse me of ignoring that Dzarumazh\\\'s \\\"innumerable\\\" Allies are accessible only to Dorian Hargrave while yourself ignoring that Dorian Hargrave has access to Changeling allies as well as mortals. So, congrats; he can, if he wants, bury you under an entire army of other Changelings. Which is what I\\\'ve been saying.

re: Defense -- well, that only makes it even worse for you. Your max possible defense is what, 5? So, after subtracting his penalties \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' your defense, his die pools are... 16 and 17. How much armor can you layer on top of that? Enough to reduce any of those die pools into single-digit #\\\'s, even, let alone to zero? Nope. Welcome to Obliterated, population: you.

As for the rest of your rules suggestions, they are in the territory of moving deck chairs on the Titanic as far as shifting the odds materially. Re: Firearms -- \\\'everybody I asked agrees with me\\\' is an argument right down there with \\\'the lurkers support me in e-mail\\\' as far as persuasiveness goes.

\\\"Reducing the entire conflict to pure combat with nothing but his true form assumes that your Storyteller is going to be a powergaming jackass.\\\"

No, its giving Dzarumazh credit for having the brains of a garden slug. Attacking him as Dorian Hargrave will result in him either shifting to his true form anyway, or leaving the fight. Why on Earth \\\'\\\'should\\\'\\\' he stick around and fight you to the death in his lesser, more vulnerable form? If Dzarumazh was your PC, would \\\'\\\'you\\\'\\\'?

But, most importantly, there is this:

\\\'\\\'\\\'Your complaint about Unholy Splendor in particular seems to boil down to \\\"what if my Storyteller is a dick?\\\"\\\'\\\'\\\'

No. My complaint about Unholy Spendor is this, and I will bold-text it so you do not miss it:

\\\'\\\'\\\'YOUR ONLY REALISTIC HOPE OF BEATING DZARUMAZH IS IF THE DM DELIBERATELY FORGETS TO HAVE DZARUMAZH USE HIS PRIMARY CROWD CONTROL POWER.\\\'\\\'\\\'

Unholy Splendor is on his character sheet. That its horribly broken and unfair is in fact the entire point of complaining about it; that is what CanonSue means, after all. So saying that \\\'its only a problem if the DM is a dick!\\\' is deliberately evading the point; it is not the DM who is the dick in this equation. He\\\'s just using the character as written. The dick was the dude who wrote the character up.

Which is the entire crux of the argument. Unless your DM deliberately shoots the fucker in the head with PlotInducedStupidity, and has it just skip using its best powers, your odds of winning drop down to \\\"pray for a miracle\\\" territory. Any monster that is nigh-impossible to beat by any PC party without truly ridiculous Wyrd 7+ twinking and/or deliberate DM nerfing of the monster is, by definition, CanonSue.

If you can\\\'t beat the thing without a DM gimme, then it ain\\\'t balanced.

So I am putting the entry back in.

Edit: \\\"Wait until the discussion is resolved?\\\" Um, define \\\"resolved\\\". Does that mean \\\'Chuckg is not allowed to post it until WonSab agrees with it?\\\' Because last I checked, nobody had the ability to give themselves veto power here.
Changed line(s) 5 from:
You accuse me of ignoring that Dzarumazh\'s \
to:
You accuse me of ignoring that Dzarumazh\\\'s \\\"innumerable\\\" Allies are accessible only to Dorian Hargrave while yourself ignoring that Dorian Hargrave has access to Changeling allies as well as mortals. So, congrats; he can, if he wants, bury you under an entire army of other Changelings. Which is what I\\\'ve been saying.

re: Defense -- well, that only makes it even worse for you. Your max possible defense is what, 5? So, after subtracting his penalties \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' your defense, his die pools are... 16 and 17. How much armor can you layer on top of that? Enough to reduce any of those die pools into single-digit #\\\'s, even, let alone to zero? Nope. Welcome to Obliterated, population: you.

As for the rest of your rules suggestions, they are in the territory of moving deck chairs on the Titanic as far as shifting the odds materially. Re: Firearms -- \\\'everybody I asked agrees with me\\\' is an argument right down there with \\\'the lurkers support me in e-mail\\\' as far as persuasiveness goes.

\\\"Reducing the entire conflict to pure combat with nothing but his true form assumes that your Storyteller is going to be a powergaming jackass.\\\"

No, its giving Dzarumazh credit for having the brains of a garden slug. Attacking him as Dorian Hargrave will result in him either shifting to his true form anyway, or leaving the fight. Why on Earth \\\'\\\'should\\\'\\\' he stick around and fight you to the death in his lesser, more vulnerable form? If Dzarumazh was your PC, would \\\'\\\'you\\\'\\\'?

But, most importantly, there is this:

\\\'\\\'\\\'Your complaint about Unholy Splendor in particular seems to boil down to \\\"what if my Storyteller is a dick?\\\"\\\'\\\'\\\'

No. My complaint about Unholy Spendor is this, and I will bold-text it so you do not miss it:

\\\'\\\'\\\'YOUR ONLY REALISTIC HOPE OF BEATING DZARUMAZH IS IF THE DM DELIBERATELY FORGETS TO HAVE DZARUMAZH USE HIS PRIMARY CROWD CONTROL POWER.\\\'\\\'\\\'

Unholy Splendor is on his character sheet. That its horribly broken and unfair is in fact the entire point of complaining about it; that is what CanonSue means, after all. So saying that \\\'its only a problem if the DM is a dick!\\\' is deliberately evading the point; it is not the DM who is the dick in this equation. He\\\'s just using the character as written. The dick was the dude who wrote the character up.

Which is the entire crux of the argument. Unless your DM deliberately shoots the fucker in the head with PlotInducedStupidity, and has it just skip using its best powers, your odds of winning drop down to \\\"pray for a miracle\\\" territory. Any monster that is nigh-impossible to beat by any PC party without truly ridiculous Wyrd 7+ twinking and/or deliberate DM nerfing of the monster is, by definition, CanonSue.

If you can\\\'t beat the thing without a DM gimme, then it ain\\\'t balanced.

So I am putting the entry back in.

Edit; and taking it out will only keep it down until I check the page again. Which, to be fair, is not every day. But telling me \\\'you can\\\'t post until the discussion ends\\\' is not something I agree with; the practical effect of that is to give you veto power over everything I write, because you can just drag the discussion out forever if you feel like. Y\\\'know what? I don\\\'t remember getting veto power over your posts, so, why should you over mine?
Changed line(s) 5 from:
You accuse me of ignoring that Dzarumazh\'s \
to:
You accuse me of ignoring that Dzarumazh\\\'s \\\"innumerable\\\" Allies are accessible only to Dorian Hargrave while yourself ignoring that Dorian Hargrave has access to Changeling allies as well as mortals. So, congrats; he can, if he wants, bury you under an entire army of other Changelings. Which is what I\\\'ve been saying.

re: Defense -- well, that only makes it even worse for you. Your max possible defense is what, 5? So, after subtracting his penalties \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' your defense, his die pools are... 16 and 17. How much armor can you layer on top of that? Enough to reduce any of those die pools into single-digit #\\\'s, even, let alone to zero? Nope. Welcome to Obliterated, population: you.

As for the rest of your rules suggestions, they are in the territory of moving deck chairs on the Titanic as far as shifting the odds materially. Re: Firearms -- \\\'everybody I asked agrees with me\\\' is an argument right down there with \\\'the lurkers support me in e-mail\\\' as far as persuasiveness goes.

\\\"Reducing the entire conflict to pure combat with nothing but his true form assumes that your Storyteller is going to be a powergaming jackass.\\\"

No, its giving Dzarumazh credit for having the brains of a garden slug. Attacking him as Dorian Hargrave will result in him either shifting to his true form anyway, or leaving the fight. Why on Earth \\\'\\\'should\\\'\\\' he stick around and fight you to the death in his lesser, more vulnerable form? If Dzarumazh was your PC, would \\\'\\\'you\\\'\\\'?

But, most importantly, there is this:

\\\'\\\'\\\'Your complaint about Unholy Splendor in particular seems to boil down to \\\"what if my Storyteller is a dick?\\\"\\\'\\\'\\\'

No. My complaint about Unholy Spendor is this, and I will bold-text it so you do not miss it:

\\\'\\\'\\\'YOUR ONLY REALISTIC HOPE OF BEATING DZARUMAZH IS IF THE DM DELIBERATELY FORGETS TO HAVE DZARUMAZH USE HIS PRIMARY CROWD CONTROL POWER.\\\'\\\'\\\'

Unholy Splendor is on his character sheet. That its horribly broken and unfair is in fact the entire point of complaining about it; that is what CanonSue means, after all. So saying that \\\'its only a problem if the DM is a dick!\\\' is deliberately evading the point; it is not the DM who is the dick in this equation. He\\\'s just using the character as written. The dick was the dude who wrote the character up.

Which is the entire crux of the argument. Unless your DM deliberately shoots the fucker in the head with PlotInducedStupidity, and has it just skip using its best powers, your odds of winning drop down to \\\"pray for a miracle\\\" territory. Any monster that is nigh-impossible to beat by any PC party without truly ridiculous Wyrd 7+ twinking and/or deliberate DM nerfing of the monster is, by definition, CanonSue.

If you can\\\'t beat the thing without a DM gimme, then it ain\\\'t balanced.

So I am putting the entry back in.


Changed line(s) 5 from:
You accuse me of ignoring that Dzarumazh\'s \
to:
You accuse me of ignoring that Dzarumazh\\\'s \\\"innumerable\\\" Allies are accessible only to Dorian Hargrave while yourself ignoring that Dorian Hargrave has access to Changeling allies as well as mortals. So, congrats; he can, if he wants, bury you under an entire army of other Changelings. Which is what I\\\'ve been saying.

re: Defense -- well, that only makes it even worse for you. Your max possible defense is what, 5? So, after subtracting his penalties \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' your defense, his die pools are... 16 and 17. How much armor can you layer on top of that? Enough to reduce any of those die pools into single-digit #\\\'s, even, let alone to zero? Nope. Welcome to Obliterated, population: you.

As for the rest of your rules suggestions, they are in the territory of moving deck chairs on the Titanic as far as shifting the odds materially. Re: Firearms -- \\\'everybody I asked agrees with me\\\' is an argument right down there with \\\'the lurkers support me in e-mail\\\' as far as persuasiveness goes.

\\\"Reducing the entire conflict to pure combat with nothing but his true form assumes that your Storyteller is going to be a powergaming jackass.\\\"

No, its giving Dzarumazh credit for having the brains of a garden slug. Attacking him as Dorian Hargrave will result in him either shifting to his true form anyway, or leaving the fight. Why on Earth \\\'\\\'should\\\'\\\' he stick around and fight you to the death in his lesser, more vulnerable form? If Dzarumazh was your PC, would \\\'\\\'you\\\'\\\'?

But, most importantly, there is this:

\\\'\\\'\\\'Your complaint about Unholy Splendor in particular seems to boil down to \\\"what if my Storyteller is a dick?\\\"\\\'\\\'\\\'

No. My complaint about Unholy Spendor is this, and I will bold-text it so you do not miss it:

\\\'\\\'\\\'YOUR ONLY REALISTIC HOPE OF BEATING DZARUMAZH IS IF THE DM DELIBERATELY FORGETS TO HAVE DZARUMAZH USE HIS PRIMARY CROWD CONTROL POWER.\\\'\\\'\\\'

Unholy Splendor is on his character sheet. That its horribly broken and unfair is in fact the entire point of complaining about it; that is what CanonSue means, after all. So saying that \\\'its only a problem if the DM is a dick!\\\' is deliberately evading the point; it is not the DM who is the dick in this equation. He\\\'s just using the character as written. The dick was the dude who wrote the character up.

Again, do this thought exercise; Imagine that Dzarumazh is a pregenerated tournament character, and you\\\'re playing it, and the DM is sending a party of [=NPCs=], twinked out suitably, to try and kill it. Would you deliberately pass up using Unholy Splendor in this circumstance? Of course not. It wouldn\\\'t make you a \\\"powergaming jackass\\\" to actually use your [=PC\\\'s=] listed abilities. (It would make you one to actually \\\'\\\'create\\\'\\\' a character like this, admitted, is why I specified \\\'using a tournament pregen\\\'.) Neither does it make the DM one when he does the same thing. It would make him one if this was his own character that he whipped up for the purpose of mulching PCs, but it ain\\\'t; its a canon NPC whose stats are entirely from the book.

Which is the entire crux of the argument. Unless your DM deliberately shoots the fucker in the head with PlotInducedStupidity, and has it just skip using its best powers, your odds of winning drop down to \\\"pray for a miracle\\\" territory. Any monster that is nigh-impossible to beat by any PC party without truly ridiculous Wyrd 7+ twinking and/or deliberate DM nerfing of the monster is, by definition, CanonSue.

So I am putting the entry back in.


Changed line(s) 5 from:
You accuse me of ignoring that Dzarumazh\'s \
to:
You accuse me of ignoring that Dzarumazh\\\'s \\\"innumerable\\\" Allies are accessible only to Dorian Hargrave while yourself ignoring that Dorian Hargrave has access to Changeling allies as well as mortals. So, congrats; he can, if he wants, bury you under an entire army of other Changelings. Which is what I\\\'ve been saying.

re: Defense -- well, that only makes it even worse for you. Your max possible defense is what, 5? So, after subtracting his penalties \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' your defense, his die pools are... 16 and 17. How much armor can you layer on top of that? Enough to reduce any of those die pools into single-digit #\\\'s, even, let alone to zero? Nope. Welcome to Obliterated, population: you.

As for the rest of your rules suggestions, they are in the territory of moving deck chairs on the Titanic as far as shifting the odds materially. Re: Firearms -- \\\'everybody I asked agrees with me\\\' is an argument right down there with \\\'the lurkers support me in e-mail\\\' as far as persuasiveness goes.

\\\"Reducing the entire conflict to pure combat with nothing but his true form assumes that your Storyteller is going to be a powergaming jackass.\\\"

No, its giving Dzarumazh credit for having the brains of a garden slug. Attacking him as Dorian Hargrave will result in him either shifting to his true form anyway, or leaving the fight. Why on Earth \\\'\\\'should\\\'\\\' he stick around and fight you to the death in his lesser, more vulnerable form? If Dzarumazh was your PC, would \\\'\\\'you\\\'\\\'?

But, most importantly, there is this:

\\\'\\\'\\\'Your complaint about Unholy Splendor in particular seems to boil down to \\\"what if my Storyteller is a dick?\\\"\\\'\\\'\\\'

No. My complaint about Unholy Spendor is this, and I will bold-text it so you do not miss it:

\\\'\\\'\\\'YOUR ONLY REALISTIC HOPE OF BEATING DZARUMAZH IS IF THE DM DELIBERATELY FORGETS TO HAVE DZARUMAZH USE HIS PRIMARY CROWD CONTROL POWER.\\\'\\\'\\\'

Unholy Splendor is on his character sheet. That its horribly broken and unfair is in fact the entire point of complaining about it; that is what CanonSue means, after all. So saying that \\\'its only a problem if the DM is a dick!\\\' is deliberately evading the point; it is not the DM who is the dick in this equation. He\\\'s just using the character as written. The dick was the dude who wrote the character up.

Again, do this thought exercise; Imagine that Dzarumazh is a pregenerated tournament character, and you\\\'re playing it, and the DM is sending a party of [=NPCs=], twinked out suitably, to try and kill it. Would you deliberately pass up using Unholy Splendor in this circumstance? Of course not. It wouldn\\\'t make you a \\\"powergaming jackass\\\" to actually use your [=PC\\\'s=] listed abilities. Neither does it make the DM one when he does the same thing.

Which is the entire crux of the argument. Unless your DM deliberately shoots the fucker in the head with PlotInducedStupidity, and has it just skip using its best powers, your odds of winning drop down to \\\"pray for a miracle\\\" territory. Any monster that is nigh-impossible to beat by any PC party without truly ridiculous Wyrd 7+ twinking and/or deliberate DM nerfing of the monster is, by definition, CanonSue.

So I am putting the entry back in.


Changed line(s) 5 from:
You accuse me of ignoring that Dzarumazh\'s \
to:
You accuse me of ignoring that Dzarumazh\\\'s \\\"innumerable\\\" Allies are accessible only to Dorian Hargrave while yourself ignoring that Dorian Hargrave has access to Changeling allies as well as mortals. So, congrats; he can, if he wants, bury you under an entire army of other Changelings. Which is what I\\\'ve been saying.

re: Defense -- well, that only makes it even worse for you. Your max possible defense is what, 5? So, after subtracting his penalties \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' your defense, his die pools are... 16 and 17. How much armor can you layer on top of that? Enough to reduce any of those die pools into single-digit #\\\'s, even, let alone to zero? Nope. Welcome to Obliterated, population: you.

As for the rest of your rules suggestions, they are in the territory of moving deck chairs on the Titanic as far as shifting the odds materially. Re: Firearms -- \\\'everybody I asked agrees with me\\\' is an argument right down there with \\\'the lurkers support me in e-mail\\\' as far as persuasiveness goes.

\\\"Reducing the entire conflict to pure combat with nothing but his true form assumes that your Storyteller is going to be a powergaming jackass.\\\"

No, its giving Dzarumazh credit for having the brains of a garden slug. Attacking him as Dorian Hargrave will result in him either shifting to his true form anyway, or leaving the fight. Why on Earth \\\'\\\'should\\\'\\\' he stick around and fight you to the death in his lesser, more vulnerable form? If Dzarumazh was your PC, would \\\'\\\'you\\\'\\\'?

But, most importantly, there is this:

\\\'\\\'\\\'Your complaint about Unholy Splendor in particular seems to boil down to \\\"what if my Storyteller is a dick?\\\"\\\'\\\'\\\'

No. My complaint about Unholy Spendor is this, and I will bold-text it so you do not miss it:

\\\'\\\'\\\'YOUR ONLY REALISTIC HOPE OF BEATING DZARUMAZH IS IF THE DM DELIBERATELY FORGETS TO HAVE DZARUMAZH USE HIS PRIMARY CROWD CONTROL POWER.\\\'\\\'\\\'

Unholy Splendor is on his character sheet. That its horribly broken and unfair is in fact the entire point of complaining about it; that is what CanonSue means, after all. So saying that \\\'its only a problem if the DM is a dick!\\\' is deliberately evading the point; it is not the DM who is the dick in this equation. He\\\'s just using the character as written. The dick was the dude who wrote the character up.

Which is the entire crux of the argument. Unless your DM deliberately shoots the fucker in the head with PlotInducedStupidity, your odds of winning drop down to \\\"pray for a miracle\\\" territory. Any monster that is nigh-impossible to beat by any PC party without truly ridiculous Wyrd 7+ twinking and/or deliberate DM nerfing of the monster is, by definition, CanonSue.

So I am putting the entry back in.


Changed line(s) 5 from:
You accuse me of ignoring that Dzarumazh\'s \
to:
You accuse me of ignoring that Dzarumazh\\\'s \\\"innumerable\\\" Allies are accessible only to Dorian Hargrave while yourself ignoring that Dorian Hargrave has access to Changeling allies as well as mortals. So, congrats; he can, if he wants, bury you under an entire army of other Changelings. Which is what I\\\'ve been saying.

re: Defense -- well, that only makes it even worse for you. Your max possible defense is what, 5? So, after subtracting his penalties \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' your defense, his die pools are... 16 and 17. How much armor can you layer on top of that? Enough to reduce any of those die pools into single-digit #\\\'s, even, let alone to zero? Nope. Welcome to Obliterated, population: you.

As for the rest of your rules suggestions, they are in the territory of moving deck chairs on the Titanic as far as shifting the odds materially. Re: Firearms -- \\\'everybody I asked agrees with me\\\' is an argument right down there with \\\'the lurkers support me in e-mail\\\' as far as persuasiveness goes.

\\\"Reducing the entire conflict to pure combat with nothing but his true form assumes that your Storyteller is going to be a powergaming jackass.\\\"

No, its giving Dzarumazh credit for having the brains of a garden slug. Attacking him as Dorian Hargrave will result in him either shifting to his true form anyway, or leaving the fight. Why on Earth \\\'\\\'should\\\'\\\' he stick around and fight you in his lesser form? If Dzarumazh was your PC, would \\\'\\\'you\\\'\\\'?

But, most importantly, there is this:

\\\'\\\'\\\'Your complaint about Unholy Splendor in particular seems to boil down to \\\"what if my Storyteller is a dick?\\\"\\\'\\\'\\\'

No. My complaint about Unholy Spendor is this, and I will bold-text it so you do not miss it:

\\\'\\\'\\\'YOUR ONLY REALISTIC HOPE OF BEATING DZARUMAZH IS IF THE DM DELIBERATELY FORGETS TO HAVE DZARUMAZH USE HIS PRIMARY CROWD CONTROL POWER.\\\'\\\'\\\'

Unholy Splendor is on his character sheet. That its horribly broken and unfair is in fact the entire point of complaining about it; that is what CanonSue means, after all. So saying that \\\'its only a problem if the DM is a dick!\\\' is deliberately evading the point; it is not the DM who is the dick in this equation. He\\\'s just using the character as written. The dick was the dude who wrote the character up.

Which is the entire crux of the argument. Unless your DM deliberately shoots the fucker in the head with PlotInducedStupidity, your odds of winning drop down to \\\"pray for a miracle\\\" territory. Any monster that is nigh-impossible to beat by any PC party without truly ridiculous Wyrd 7+ twinking and/or deliberate DM nerfing of the monster is, by definition, CanonSue.

So I am putting the entry back in.


Changed line(s) 5 from:
You accuse me of ignoring that Dzarumazh\'s \
to:
You accuse me of ignoring that Dzarumazh\\\'s \\\"innumerable\\\" Allies are accessible only to Dorian Hargrave while yourself ignoring that Dorian Hargrave has access to Changeling allies as well as mortals. So, congrats; he can, if he wants, bury you under an entire army of other Changelings. Which is what I\\\'ve been saying.

re: Defense -- well, that only makes it even worse for you. Your max possible defense is what, 5? So, after subtracting his penalties \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' your defense, his die pools are... 16 and 17. How much armor can you layer on top of that? Enough to reduce any of those die pools into single-digit #\\\'s, even, let alone to zero? Nope. Welcome to Obliterated, population: you.

As for the rest of your rules suggestions, they are in the territory of moving deck chairs on the Titanic as far as shifting the odds materially.

\\\"Reducing the entire conflict to pure combat with nothing but his true form assumes that your Storyteller is going to be a powergaming jackass.\\\"

No, its giving Dzarumazh credit for having the brains of a garden slug. Attacking him as Dorian Hargrave will result in him either shifting to his true form anyway, or leaving the fight. Why on Earth \\\'\\\'should\\\'\\\' he stick around and fight you in his lesser form? If Dzarumazh was your PC, would \\\'\\\'you\\\'\\\'?

But, most importantly, there is this:

\\\'\\\'\\\'Your complaint about Unholy Splendor in particular seems to boil down to \\\"what if my Storyteller is a dick?\\\"\\\'\\\'\\\'

No. My complaint about Unholy Spendor is this, and I will bold-text it so you do not miss it:

\\\'\\\'\\\'YOUR ONLY REALISTIC HOPE OF BEATING DZARUMAZH IS IF THE DM DELIBERATELY FORGETS TO HAVE DZARUMAZH USE HIS PRIMARY CROWD CONTROL POWER.\\\'\\\'\\\'

Unholy Splendor is on his character sheet. That its horribly broken and unfair is in fact the entire point of complaining about it; that is what CanonSue means, after all. So saying that \\\'its only a problem if the DM is a dick!\\\' is deliberately evading the point; it is not the DM who is the dick in this equation. He\\\'s just using the character as written. The dick was the dude who wrote the character up.

Which is the entire crux of the argument. Unless your DM deliberately shoots the fucker in the head with PlotInducedStupidity, your odds of winning drop down to \\\"pray for a miracle\\\" territory. Any monster that is nigh-impossible to beat by any PC party without truly ridiculous Wyrd 7+ twinking and/or deliberate DM nerfing of the monster is, by definition, CanonSue.

So I am putting the entry back in.


Changed line(s) 5 from:
You accuse me of ignoring that Dzarumazh\'s \
to:
You accuse me of ignoring that Dzarumazh\\\'s \\\"innumerable\\\" Allies are accessible only to Dorian Hargrave while yourself ignoring that Dorian Hargrave has access to Changeling allies as well as mortals. So, congrats; he can, if he wants, bury you under an entire army of other Changelings. Which is what I\\\'ve been saying.

re: Defense -- well, that only makes it even worse for you. Your max possible defense is what, 5? So, after subtracting his penalties \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' your defense, his die pools are... 16 and 17. How much armor can you layer on top of that? Enough to reduce any of those die pools into single-digit #\\\'s, even, let alone to zero? Nope. Welcome to Obliterated, population: you.

As for the rest of your rules suggestions, they are in the territory of moving deck chairs on the Titanic as far as shifting the odds materially.

But, most importantly, there is this:

\\\'\\\'\\\'Your complaint about Unholy Splendor in particular seems to boil down to \\\"what if my Storyteller is a dick?\\\"\\\'\\\'\\\'

No. My complaint about Unholy Spendor is this, and I will bold-text it so you do not miss it:

\\\'\\\'\\\'YOUR ONLY REALISTIC HOPE OF BEATING DZARUMAZH IS IF THE DM DELIBERATELY FORGETS TO HAVE DZARUMAZH USE HIS PRIMARY CROWD CONTROL POWER.\\\'\\\'\\\'

Unholy Splendor is on his character sheet. That its horribly broken and unfair is in fact the entire point of complaining about it; that is what CanonSue means, after all. So saying that \\\'its only a problem if the DM is a dick!\\\' is deliberately evading the point; it is not the DM who is the dick in this equation. He\\\'s just using the character as written. The dick was the dude who wrote the character up.

Which is the entire crux of the argument. Unless your DM deliberately shoots the fucker in the head with PlotInducedStupidity, your odds of winning drop down to \\\"pray for a miracle\\\" territory. Any monster that is nigh-impossible to beat by any PC party without truly ridiculous Wyrd 7+ twinking and/or deliberate DM nerfing of the monster is, by definition, CanonSue.

So I am putting the entry back in.


Changed line(s) 1 from:
Yes, he is guaranteed to have at least one major Frailty. But there is no guarantee that the Frailty will be one that you have the opportunity to take advantage of. The feasibility of attacking Dzarumazh via his Frailty is \'\'\'solely\'\'\' in control of the DM: if he makes it easy for you, then its easy. If he makes it nigh-impossible for you, its nigh-impossible. This ties into what I\'ve already said; whether or not you have any real chance of taking Dzarumazh depends solely on how merciful the Storyteller is feeling.
to:
Yes, he is guaranteed to have at least one major Frailty. But there is no guarantee that the Frailty will be one that you have the opportunity to take advantage of. The feasibility of attacking Dzarumazh via his Frailty is \\\'\\\'\\\'solely\\\'\\\'\\\' in control of the DM: if he makes it easy for you, then its easy. If he makes it nigh-impossible for you, its nigh-impossible. This ties into what I\\\'ve already said; whether or not you have any real chance of taking Dzarumazh depends solely on how merciful the Storyteller is feeling. There ain\\\'t shit you can do about it.
Changed line(s) 5 from:
You accuse me of ignoring that Dzarumazh\'s \
to:
You accuse me of ignoring that Dzarumazh\\\'s \\\"innumerable\\\" Allies are accessible only to Dorian Hargrave while yourself ignoring that Dorian Hargrave has access to Changeling allies as well as mortals. So, congrats; he can, if he wants, bury you under an entire army of other Changelings. Which is what I\\\'ve been saying.

re: Defense -- well, that only makes it even worse for you. Your max possible defense is what, 5? So, after subtracting his penalties \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' your defense, his die pools are... 16 and 17. How much armor can you layer on top of that? Enough to reduce any of those die pools into single-digit #\\\'s, even, let alone to zero? Nope. Welcome to Obliterated, population: you.

As for the rest of your rules suggestions, they are in the territory of moving deck chairs on the Titanic as far as shifting the odds materially.

But, most importantly, there is this:

\\\'\\\'\\\'Your complaint about Unholy Splendor in particular seems to boil down to \\\"what if my Storyteller is a dick?\\\"\\\'\\\'\\\'

No. My complaint about Unholy Spendor is this, and I will bold-text it so you do not miss it:

\\\'\\\'\\\'YOUR ONLY REALISTIC HOPE OF BEATING DZARUMAZH IS IF THE DM DELIBERATELY FORGETS TO HAVE DZARUMAZH USE HIS PRIMARY CROWD CONTROL POWER.\\\'\\\'\\\'

Which is the entire crux of the argument. Unless your DM deliberately shoots the fucker in the head with PlotInducedStupidity, your odds of winning drop down to \\\"pray for a miracle\\\" territory. Any monster that is nigh-impossible to beat by any PC party without truly ridiculous Wyrd 7+ twinking and/or deliberate DM nerfing of the monster is, by definition, CanonSue.



Top

Example of:

/
/

Feedback