Jump to content

Recommended Posts

 

Swift Aim explicitly works for both Ranged and Melee weapons, while Vicious Aim only gives bonuses to Ranged weapons... for some reason. Would've expected some Hit-to-Crit conversion and +Crit.Dmg or something.

Well damn, I guess I should test a ranger out.

 

Pets could still use some more beefing up, and IMO the Ranger modals should be moved to the general talent pool.

 

 

Personally, I think that the very strong, "hard" Even Level/Odd Level and Ability/Talent system needs to be broken up somehow. You feel that the modals should be made into Talents, well I feel that the sea of passives the Ranger can take are the most boring-ass Abilities there are (and those just happen to be the ones that boosts the Animal Companion).

 

And it's not just the ranger, but other classes too. Too many boring passives amongst the Abilities, but I also don't feel like I want to make them into Talents, because we're already extremely Talent-starved.

 

Abilities every Odd Level, Feats every Even Level, and Talents every level? Introducing Feats as Class-specific Abilities that aren't.. Abilities? I don't know, I haven't got a clue, I'm just throwing ideas around.

  • Like 1

t50aJUd.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The pet is a one per encounter suicide bomber that is ready to go the next battle without accruing any attrition based health damage. Send it in first to take the alpha strike or be the focus for your fireballs. The lion has a pretty large area de-buff roar that would help your team avoid some damage .

 

I posted this in another Ranger topic:

 

 

 

I feel like if the pet is not dead at the end of every fight I am not getting the most out of it original.gif

 

PC "Look there's a giant slime and some puddings."

 

Eder "They look dangerous, probably have poison and diseases"

 

PC "Better send the fox in first"

 

Aloth "Once they bunch up I'll let loose with a fireball and some cones of fire"

 

Itumaak "Where is the SPCA when I need them? sad.png "

 

 

 

My party should be hunted by PETA not by the leaden key.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree the pet feels tacked on. This is especially glaring in

Twin Elms[/b], where domesticated animals seem to comprise half of the population.

 

 

I'd like to give the pet an item, maybe a single itemslot for a ring or necklace. That would allow to customize it a bit and also strenghten, but not too much. I think the fox of Sagani is a bit on the weak side, even if you have a Priest.

 

I would like two things in this  vein:

1. Pets can be fed normal food, like Ixamitl Ricepan, Dragonmeat Dish etc. Only one food type could be active at a time.

2. You could learn a talent which gives the pet a potion slot.

 

Bonus points for feeding your opponents to your pet!! Cruelty points ?

 

 


Drizzt needs to die.  He needs to die horribly.  He was never an interesting character and was a complete Marty Stu scumbag who deserved to die screaming at my whims and his impact on the Ranger class completely screwed it up.  Thanks to him I have not been able to play my Aragorn-like Ranger or Jack the Giant Slayer type, bloody mother-****ing bastard, die die die!

 

Did I mention I think Drizzt should die?

 

 

I sympathize with this. Drizzt is probably the reason most games give Ranger the silly dual wield bonus. While we're at it, I'm annoyed by the stereotypical fantasy barbarian, who is a dumb bullet sponge with huge damage. This is inspired by the MOVIE about Conan the Barbarian. But do read the BOOKS about Conan! It's a completely different experience. Conan from books is a monster, too, but he never relies on taking damage ! He uses every trick to AVOID being hit, including wielding a corpse of a killed enemy to shield blows. Also, many times he simply... runs away! He knows when to fight and when to run, which automatically makes him smarter than 90% of video game protagonists, who just kill everything in their path. Also, Conan often uses stealth and on a few occasions even backstabs. Intelligence wasn't his dumpstat for sure. He may have been quite flat as a personality, but the books are fun to read because the action is good, and the setting easily overshadows the hero. One lovely thing is that wizards in Conan universe are always about demon summoning, skeletons, terrible knowledge, cursed artifacts etc. They either oppose Conan or ally with him, but all of them are deliciously sinister.

 

 


Personally, I think that the very strong, "hard" Even Level/Odd Level and Ability/Talent system needs to be broken up somehow. You feel that the modals should be made into Talents, well I feel that the sea of passives the Ranger can take are the most boring-ass Abilities there are (and those just happen to be the ones that boosts the Animal Companion).

 

In case of rangers, their passives are often conditional.

Merciless Companion - enemy needs to be somehow disabled

Predator's Sense - except for the one bow, this generally comes from active abilities too, especially Wounding Shot

Stalker's Link - ranged flanking, but you need to use both pieces of ranger to flank

Defensive Bond - you need to keep Ranger and companion close, as defense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For what it's worth, I find Sagani pretty hilarious.  She and her fox remnd me of a game my kids play called Never Alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How to fix ranger so its fun awesome and not overpowered...

 

Rangers learn self/party Druid spells..

No offensive spells..

Only ever cast max 1 per rest(per spell level) and they NEVER get per encounter...

Can use talents to add Extra spell level cast per rest.

 

Rangers will never replace Druid in a party... but they become more then autoattack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In case of rangers, their passives are often conditional.

Merciless Companion - enemy needs to be somehow disabled

 

 

It's enough to flank enemies with your pet. When playing solo, a melee ranger can easily tank enemies while the pet shreds them to pieces from the side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly think a lot of problems are there are No Scripts for your NPC's. A script for the pet would help solve so many problems. I would just set it to guard mode. Not charge first enemy you see even if out numbered 10-1 mode.

 

I just didn't want another character to micro manage. Its not the ranger needing extra managing its the damn pet. Like Pet just wait 5 seconds before you go all crazy and charge everyone. I mean the Pet is useful however its out of control. That is why Scripts are needed.I just couldn't be bothered with it. Maybe if my PC was a Ranger I care more. But not the Ranger NPC. I just created a Rogue Archer adventurer instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the main problems with rangers is that Sagani is terrible: the fox doesn't have proper stats and they gave her "peasant weapons", which while it makes sense for her background gives her a hunting bow specialization which is the worst ranged weapon the in the game because of how frequent high DR enemies are.

 

So if you aren't playing a ranger yourself, your first experience of the class is someone who is gimped.

 

(Conan, as written by Howard, in any case, was very smart.  And yeah, he wore as much armor as he could get away with.  There's one short story where he's sneaking around in chain mail while the Aquilonian rangers are using leather, because Conan has learned how to sneak in chain.  Armor = good as far as Conan is concerned.)

Edited by Taritu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Luckmann the 'gimmick' as it were needs to be reworked to be more core than just a fighter with a critter.

 

Make the critter more durable and make it more rewarding to control it and have it and the ranger work in tandem than it currently is (stacking passive bonuses). You give up the good extra abilities of the other fighter classes for the pet and it just doesn't seem worth it to me atm.

 

Also, as a pet owner, I find it odd that the ranger immediately starts grieving in combat if the pet dies. You'd think that would be an enraging event rather than having you start uncontrollably sobbing in the middle of combat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually... its not...

 

Horsemen and knights were known to actually weep at the loss of the horse... others were known to become enraged...

It would be much more fun if every time the pet drops... you have a chance to get +8 might Dex and -10int.

Or become Paralysed for 5 seconds with grief.

Higher the Resolve the greater chance its Rage and not grief.

 

I agree with Luckmann the 'gimmick' as it were needs to be reworked to be more core than just a fighter with a critter.

 

Make the critter more durable and make it more rewarding to control it and have it and the ranger work in tandem than it currently is (stacking passive bonuses). You give up the good extra abilities of the other fighter classes for the pet and it just doesn't seem worth it to me atm.

 

Also, as a pet owner, I find it odd that the ranger immediately starts grieving in combat if the pet dies. You'd think that would be an enraging event rather than having you start uncontrollably sobbing in the middle of combat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the pet doesn't die, it gets knocked out.

  • Like 1

"Take your child murderin' god and shove his him up his own ass."-Volorun

 

"...the vote of a black redhead disabled homosexual transsexual Jew should probably be worth the same as at least a hundred white heterosexual Christians."-Rostere

 

"i can think of many women i would gladly sleep with, but not a single one that i would want as a girlfriend/wife... neither real nor fictional."-teknoman2

 

"I'm all for killing dogs in film." - algroth

 

"Iselmyr is the one who did GOMAD... Aloth is lactose intolerant" -ShadySands

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For what it's worth, I find Sagani pretty hilarious.  She and her fox remnd me of a game my kids play called Never Alone.

 

 

 

Eder: Sagani, does your fox bite ?

Sagani: Yes.

Eder: Can I pet him ?

Sagani: It's your hand.

Eder: I'M GONNA PET HIM!!

 

 

 

Speaking of Sagani and her fox, has anyone heard the

 

 

fox-specific banters requiring food in inventory the patch notes mention ? I can't remember anything like that and on my second playthrough I have all kinds of food in my inventory (not  stash) just for this purpose.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Actually... its not...

 

Horsemen and knights were known to actually weep at the loss of the horse... others were known to become enraged...

It would be much more fun if every time the pet drops... you have a chance to get +8 might Dex and -10int.

Or become Paralysed for 5 seconds with grief.

Higher the Resolve the greater chance its Rage and not grief.

 

I agree with Luckmann the 'gimmick' as it were needs to be reworked to be more core than just a fighter with a critter.

 

Make the critter more durable and make it more rewarding to control it and have it and the ranger work in tandem than it currently is (stacking passive bonuses). You give up the good extra abilities of the other fighter classes for the pet and it just doesn't seem worth it to me atm.

 

Also, as a pet owner, I find it odd that the ranger immediately starts grieving in combat if the pet dies. You'd think that would be an enraging event rather than having you start uncontrollably sobbing in the middle of combat.

 

 

No doubt because a horsemans horse is like a K9 officer's dog. Its a working pet. My point is you don't suddenly become crippled in grief in the middle of combat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You misunderstand me... thats EXACTLY what is known to happen... Knights would just up and start crying over the horse... or DOG(English Mastiffs were bred for fighting and bonded to a knight and fought with them in battle)

Horsemen in charges during ww1 are known to have stoped EVERYTHING and just greived over there horse... many brought their own horses that they had raised/trained and were not actually issued...

 

Stopping everything in the middle of a battle to cry over a lost pet is KNOWN to happen in real war with REAL "pets"

 

 

Actually... its not...

 

Horsemen and knights were known to actually weep at the loss of the horse... others were known to become enraged...

It would be much more fun if every time the pet drops... you have a chance to get +8 might Dex and -10int.

Or become Paralysed for 5 seconds with grief.

Higher the Resolve the greater chance its Rage and not grief.

 

I agree with Luckmann the 'gimmick' as it were needs to be reworked to be more core than just a fighter with a critter.

 

Make the critter more durable and make it more rewarding to control it and have it and the ranger work in tandem than it currently is (stacking passive bonuses). You give up the good extra abilities of the other fighter classes for the pet and it just doesn't seem worth it to me atm.

 

Also, as a pet owner, I find it odd that the ranger immediately starts grieving in combat if the pet dies. You'd think that would be an enraging event rather than having you start uncontrollably sobbing in the middle of combat.

 

 

No doubt because a horsemans horse is like a K9 officer's dog. Its a working pet. My point is you don't suddenly become crippled in grief in the middle of combat.

 

Edited by Phoynix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You misunderstand me... thats EXACTLY what is known to happen... Knights would just up and start crying over the horse... or DOG(English Mastiffs were bred for fighting and bonded to a knight and fought with them in battle)

Horsemen in charges during ww1 are known to have stoped EVERYTHING and just greived over there horse... many brought their own horses that they had raised/trained and were not actually issued...

 

Stopping everything in the middle of a battle to cry over a lost pet is KNOWN to happen in real war with REAL "pets"

 

 

Actually... its not...

 

Horsemen and knights were known to actually weep at the loss of the horse... others were known to become enraged...

It would be much more fun if every time the pet drops... you have a chance to get +8 might Dex and -10int.

Or become Paralysed for 5 seconds with grief.

Higher the Resolve the greater chance its Rage and not grief.

 

I agree with Luckmann the 'gimmick' as it were needs to be reworked to be more core than just a fighter with a critter.

 

Make the critter more durable and make it more rewarding to control it and have it and the ranger work in tandem than it currently is (stacking passive bonuses). You give up the good extra abilities of the other fighter classes for the pet and it just doesn't seem worth it to me atm.

 

Also, as a pet owner, I find it odd that the ranger immediately starts grieving in combat if the pet dies. You'd think that would be an enraging event rather than having you start uncontrollably sobbing in the middle of combat.

 

 

No doubt because a horsemans horse is like a K9 officer's dog. Its a working pet. My point is you don't suddenly become crippled in grief in the middle of combat.

 

 

 

Not frequently enough to warrant it being a class mechanic. I'm not saying it never happens (lots of weird **** and case studies happen over time) I'm saying its exceedingly rare because combat conditions don't lend themselves to immediately expressing grief. (unless you wanna get yourself and your allies killed).

 

Officers don't typically cease all policework in the middle of it if their K9 is injured, soldiers don't immediately drop their weapons and start balling if their best buddy get his head blown off in front of them. They finish combat, then grieve, because thats what they're trained for.

 

If you still wanna insist a soldier on horseback who gets dismounted due to spear through his horse's breast just curls up in a ball and waits to die instead of fighting then you're gonna have to start providing some sauce for me to go any further with you.

Edited by Mangonel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually

 

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

 

Once you provide proof of your arguments validity, then I must provide support for my counter argument.

 

PS-My pet peeve is people on the internet that decide they can make claims with no proof... then calling for the otherside to provide proof they are wrong... while drawing a line where the argument is over(they are right) unless you provide the proof they demand.

 

Since you want to elevate this to references required to support statements and claims... you first :)

 

Few tips

Historical records of Calvary that dont state soldiers morned killed horses during battle(say while under machinegun fire) is not proof, you require statements they DIDNT...

Just as I will need to provide historical battles(such as soldiers personal accounts) that state it DID happen.

 

Also lets settle on what constitues acceptable sources?

Is ww1 GOV run websites purportedly providing actual soldiers letters and communications... say from Australian Light Horsemen during ww1 acceptable?

Should we rule WIKI as unreliable...

 

Oh what fun :)

 

 

You misunderstand me... thats EXACTLY what is known to happen... Knights would just up and start crying over the horse... or DOG(English Mastiffs were bred for fighting and bonded to a knight and fought with them in battle)

Horsemen in charges during ww1 are known to have stoped EVERYTHING and just greived over there horse... many brought their own horses that they had raised/trained and were not actually issued...

 

Stopping everything in the middle of a battle to cry over a lost pet is KNOWN to happen in real war with REAL "pets"

 

 

Actually... its not...

 

Horsemen and knights were known to actually weep at the loss of the horse... others were known to become enraged...

It would be much more fun if every time the pet drops... you have a chance to get +8 might Dex and -10int.

Or become Paralysed for 5 seconds with grief.

Higher the Resolve the greater chance its Rage and not grief.

 

I agree with Luckmann the 'gimmick' as it were needs to be reworked to be more core than just a fighter with a critter.

 

Make the critter more durable and make it more rewarding to control it and have it and the ranger work in tandem than it currently is (stacking passive bonuses). You give up the good extra abilities of the other fighter classes for the pet and it just doesn't seem worth it to me atm.

 

Also, as a pet owner, I find it odd that the ranger immediately starts grieving in combat if the pet dies. You'd think that would be an enraging event rather than having you start uncontrollably sobbing in the middle of combat.

 

 

No doubt because a horsemans horse is like a K9 officer's dog. Its a working pet. My point is you don't suddenly become crippled in grief in the middle of combat.

 

 

 

Not frequently enough to warrant it being a class mechanic. I'm not saying it never happens (lots of weird **** and case studies happen over time) I'm saying its exceedingly rare because combat conditions don't lend themselves to immediately expressing grief. (unless you wanna get yourself and your allies killed).

 

Officers don't typically cease all policework in the middle of it if their K9 is injured, soldiers don't immediately drop their weapons and start balling if their best buddy get his head blown off in front of them. They finish combat, then grieve, because thats what they're trained for.

 

If you still wanna insist a soldier on horseback who gets dismounted due to spear through his horse's breast just curls up in a ball and waits to die instead of fighting then you're gonna have to start providing some sauce for me to go any further with you.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually

 

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

 

Once you provide proof of your arguments validity, then I must provide support for my counter argument.

 

[...]

Wait, what? No. No. That's not how it works.

 

The most fundamental principle is that you cannot prove a negative.

 

You claim that something happens.

 

Someone else says, I don't believe you.

 

The burden of evidence is on the part that says something happens. The part that claims a positive.

 

You literally cannot prove a negative. You cannot prove that something hasn't happened.

 

You just linked something that you have absolutely no understanding of. Goddammit.

 

Example: Phonyix declares that in a majority of cases as pertaining to the discussion, pet-owners and horsemen are struck with intense grief and anguish as the animal companion in question is knocked out during an altercation, and, because no-one can prove him wrong, his claim is therefore a valid one.

 

It is not for Mangonel to prove you wrong. It is for you to prove that you're right.

 

My pet peeve is people on the internet that decide they can make claims with no proof, and then calling for the other side to provide proof that they are wrong... while linking to the same logical fallacy they have pronounced, declaring the argument over unless you provide the proof they demand.. that cannot exist.

 

 

Also, I hate people that quote from the wrong side. We're civilized people, we read left to right, top to bottom; a response follows the previous statement, it does not precede it.

 

Edited by Luckmann
  • Like 2

t50aJUd.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He made the claim people WOULDNT morn a killed pet during battle.

Thats not a negative.

 

 

Actually
 
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
 
Once you provide proof of your arguments validity, then I must provide support for my counter argument.
 
[...]


Wait, what? No. No. That's not how it works.

The most fundamental principle is that you cannot prove a negative.

You claim that something happens.

Someone else says, I don't believe you.

The burden of evidence is on the part that says something happens. The part that claims a positive.

You literally cannot prove a negative. You cannot prove that something hasn't happened.

You just linked something that you have absolutely no understanding of. Goddammit.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure why you're arguing over real life implications of a soldier losing his animal companion in battle. For the game, to ensure that half of the ranger falling unconscious is meaningful, you are stricken with Bonded Grief. The alternative to this used to be that the Ranger would fall unconscious, maybe Obsidian should go back to that implementation?

 

The pet provides bonuses and is another body on the field, there needs to be some negative to it falling unconscious. What happens in reality is irrelevant here.

Edited by View619
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He made the claim people WOULDNT morn a killed pet during battle.

Thats not a negative.

 

 

Actually

 

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

 

Once you provide proof of your arguments validity, then I must provide support for my counter argument.

 

[...]

Wait, what? No. No. That's not how it works.

 

The most fundamental principle is that you cannot prove a negative.

 

You claim that something happens.

 

Someone else says, I don't believe you.

 

The burden of evidence is on the part that says something happens. The part that claims a positive.

 

You literally cannot prove a negative. You cannot prove that something hasn't happened.

 

You just linked something that you have absolutely no understanding of. Goddammit.

 

 

 

No, you tool, that's a negative. You claim that people would curl up into balls because their companion bites it, in the middle of battle. He called you on it.

 

You're saying it yourself: Wouldn't. Would. Not. As in a negative. It is no different than me saying that if I piss you in the face, a nuclear reactor in Siberia will not explode. That is a negative. I cannot possibly prove that something will not happen, or hasn't happened, or doesn't exist. Jesus H ****ing Christ it's not that hard to understand.

 

Not sure why you're arguing over real life implications of a soldier losing his animal companion in battle. For the game, to ensure that half of the ranger falling unconscious is meaningful, you are stricken with Bonded Grief. The alternative to this used to be that the Ranger would fall unconscious, maybe Obsidian should go back to that implementation?

 

The pet provides bonuses and is another body on the field, there needs to be some negative to it falling unconscious. What happens in reality is irrelevant here.

Thematically, the PoE ranger has been described as far more shamanistic than most would describe the "regular" D&D ranger, and I wish that would come across better, and I've argued for a more shamanistic-influenced pet-focused Ranger type more than once.

 

It is, of course, as you say; it is a game mechanic, and a pretty reasonable one at that. If someone absolutely needs to rationalize it - the animal companion and the ranger has a soul-bond.

 

Ooooooh, look at that, I fixed it. Give me cookies and your worship.

Edited by Luckmann
  • Like 1

t50aJUd.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True to a degree, but it needs to make some sense for suspension of disbelief.

As it is pets die to easily... and the Ranger can become useless if they spent all the talents on the Pet...

 

Also bonded Grief may not even be emotional response but physical... as the Ranger and animal are soul bounded...

 

One way that could make the pets worthwhile is if the pet gets 1/2 DR(from armor) +deflection/will/fort/reflex ranger rolls added to its own along with the armor recovery reduction.

Along with 1/10th of all damage the pet takes is taken by the ranger directly to health.

 

This means that the pet getting banged on directly effects the ranger and how often they need to rest, if you want a hardy pet you need to wear heavy armor... slowing down your attacks(and pets)

Not sure why you're arguing over real life implications of a soldier losing his animal companion in battle. For the game, to ensure that half of the ranger falling unconscious is meaningful, you are stricken with Bonded Grief. The alternative to this used to be that the Ranger would fall unconscious, maybe Obsidian should go back to that implementation?

 

The pet provides bonuses and is another body on the field, there needs to be some negative to it falling unconscious. What happens in reality is irrelevant here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have to get insulting to prove a point? nice...

 

A Negative claim is not invalid neither is proving a negative(by itself).

I had assumed with your first post that you actually ment false negative... but it actually seems you think a negative is not a valid argument... wrong...

 

Evidence of Absence(valid negative), Absence of Evidence(Invalid, a false negative).

 

Lets keep this super simple...

 

Fact

My dog only sleeps when in his bed.

 

Statement

My dog is not sleeping, because he is not in his bed.

 

Acceptable use of a negative(Evidence of Absence).

We know the dog only sleeps when in his bed, so if that is true he cant be sleeping if he is not there.

 

Facts

My dog only sleeps when in his bed.

 

Statement

My dog is sleeping, because he is in his bed.

 

False negative(Absence of Evidence.)

We know the dog sleeps in his bed, we dont know if thats the only thing he does in his bed... He could also chew bones.... etc Just because it was not stated he does other things does not mean he doesnt.

 

 

 

He made the claim people WOULDNT morn a killed pet during battle.
Thats not a negative.
 

 

Actually
 
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
 
Once you provide proof of your arguments validity, then I must provide support for my counter argument.
 
[...]


Wait, what? No. No. That's not how it works.

The most fundamental principle is that you cannot prove a negative.

You claim that something happens.

Someone else says, I don't believe you.

The burden of evidence is on the part that says something happens. The part that claims a positive.

You literally cannot prove a negative. You cannot prove that something hasn't happened.

You just linked something that you have absolutely no understanding of. Goddammit.

 

 

 
No, you tool, that's a negative. You claim that people would curl up into balls because their companion bites it, in the middle of battle. He called you on it.

You're saying it yourself: Wouldn't. Would. Not. As in a negative. It is no different than me saying that if I piss you in the face, a nuclear reactor in Siberia will not explode. That is a negative. I cannot possibly prove that something will not happen, or hasn't happened, or doesn't exist. Jesus H ****ing Christ it's not that hard to understand.

Not sure why you're arguing over real life implications of a soldier losing his animal companion in battle. For the game, to ensure that half of the ranger falling unconscious is meaningful, you are stricken with Bonded Grief. The alternative to this used to be that the Ranger would fall unconscious, maybe Obsidian should go back to that implementation?

The pet provides bonuses and is another body on the field, there needs to be some negative to it falling unconscious. What happens in reality is irrelevant here.


Thematically, the PoE ranger has been described as far more shamanistic than most would describe the "regular" D&D ranger, and I wish that would come across better, and I've argued for a more shamanistic-influenced pet-focused Ranger type more than once. It is, of course, as you say; it is a game mechanic, and a pretty reasonable one at that. If someone absolutely needs to rationalize it - the animal companion and the ranger has a soul-bond.

Ooooooh, look at that, I fixed it. Give me cookies and your worship.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have to get insulting to prove a point? nice...

 

A Negative claim is not invalid neither is proving a negative(by itself).

I had assumed with your first post that you actually ment false negative... but it actually seems you think a negative is not a valid argument... wrong...

 

Evidence of Absence(valid negative), Absence of Evidence(Invalid, a false negative).

 

Lets keep this super simple...

 

Fact

My dog only sleeps when in his bed.

 

Statement

My dog is not sleeping, because he is not in his bed.

 

Acceptable use of a negative(Evidence of Absence).

We know the dog only sleeps when in his bed, so if that is true he cant be sleeping if he is not there.

 

Facts

My dog only sleeps when in his bed.

 

Statement

My dog is sleeping, because he is in his bed.

 

False negative(Absence of Evidence.)

We know the dog sleeps in his bed, we dont know if thats the only thing he does in his bed... He could also chew bones.... etc Just because it was not stated he does other things does not mean he doesnt.

 

 

 

He made the claim people WOULDNT morn a killed pet during battle.

Thats not a negative.

 

 

Actually

 

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

 

Once you provide proof of your arguments validity, then I must provide support for my counter argument.

 

[...]

Wait, what? No. No. That's not how it works.

 

The most fundamental principle is that you cannot prove a negative.

 

You claim that something happens.

 

Someone else says, I don't believe you.

 

The burden of evidence is on the part that says something happens. The part that claims a positive.

 

You literally cannot prove a negative. You cannot prove that something hasn't happened.

 

You just linked something that you have absolutely no understanding of. Goddammit.

 

 

 

No, you tool, that's a negative. You claim that people would curl up into balls because their companion bites it, in the middle of battle. He called you on it.

 

You're saying it yourself: Wouldn't. Would. Not. As in a negative. It is no different than me saying that if I piss you in the face, a nuclear reactor in Siberia will not explode. That is a negative. I cannot possibly prove that something will not happen, or hasn't happened, or doesn't exist. Jesus H ****ing Christ it's not that hard to understand.

 

Not sure why you're arguing over real life implications of a soldier losing his animal companion in battle. For the game, to ensure that half of the ranger falling unconscious is meaningful, you are stricken with Bonded Grief. The alternative to this used to be that the Ranger would fall unconscious, maybe Obsidian should go back to that implementation?

 

The pet provides bonuses and is another body on the field, there needs to be some negative to it falling unconscious. What happens in reality is irrelevant here.

Thematically, the PoE ranger has been described as far more shamanistic than most would describe the "regular" D&D ranger, and I wish that would come across better, and I've argued for a more shamanistic-influenced pet-focused Ranger type more than once. It is, of course, as you say; it is a game mechanic, and a pretty reasonable one at that. If someone absolutely needs to rationalize it - the animal companion and the ranger has a soul-bond.

 

Ooooooh, look at that, I fixed it. Give me cookies and your worship.

 

 

This is just getting sad. Stop. Please stop. I can feel the braincells dying just from reading this.


t50aJUd.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...