Pureblade you should learn to DR, things change in DR for every 10 thousand of your posts (every few days). things that never will ever happen (ever), will happen next month or next year. Barbarians are a pretty good example of that.


Codiax.
Forged Weapons:
http://www.elanthipedia.org/wiki/User:Codiax#Codiax-Forged-Weapons

So I was thinking today...

It would be cool if barbs had invisibility.

<<Also here: Billy the Barb who is holding his hands over his eyes repeatedly screaming "YOU CAN'T SEE ME!">>

I would like to vote for this being added as a barbarian only verb...

Hey you dang woodchucks! Quit chucking my wood!

Columbus was a hack.

I still don't see what the issue is; a GM specifically stated what guilds have inviso, and the counter argument is still circling around 'but nuh uh, thieves can buff weapons'. Again, if inviso is the only way you all can think of PvPing, the solution isn't to give everyone inviso, but to fix inviso.

>>Times change Lemmingblade, just because a rule that's been around since the early DR days doesn't mean it has to continue to apply.

Except guild-granted [refreshing?] invisibility being more restricted by becoming definitively signature (and explicitly a feature of survival primes + moon mages) is the new rule.

I know you really responded because you saw the opportunity for a bizarre Pureblade joke in order to jump in on the foot stamping and sad pouting, and I can respect that, but it only does anyone a favor in the "I zinged a guy who once played a character named Pureblade a decade ago and I have a weird obsession about it" sense, not the "I presented a valid argument that the GMs can rightfully consider" sense.

Unless you really did just wanted to zing me, which does seem like a thing you enjoy doing for some reason. In which case, well done! You've helped move the thread into "zing a guy who played a character named Pureblade who I am mad at because ten years ago he probably did something I evidently have yet to get over" territory, which will surely accomplish a thing.

---

Uzmam! The Chairman will NOT be pleased to know you're trying to build outside of approved zones. I'd hate for you to be charged the taxes needed to have this place re-zoned. Head for the manor if you're feeling creative.

>> Also, pointing the brokenness of inviso out is not a straw man; a straw man would be suggesting that was your argument to begin with.

>>>>If PvP is broken without invisibility, the solution is not to make all guilds have invisibility.
>>>>Exactly.

^ Straw man

The problem with your assessment here is that I NEVER claimed at any point in this argument that inviso is broken. Why? Because it's NOT.

Arguing that it's broken yourself is one thing. Insinuating that I'm arguing it and then 'knocking down' your own argument is 'straw man', at best. Other ways to describe it would be 'intentionally deceitful' or 'intellectually dishonest'.

---

IM: Dannyboy00001111

"Fool proof system do not take into account the ingenuity of fools, nor the power of numbers."

Gort, I was responding directly to this comment by you:
>Blinking inviso is a huge advantage in PvP. Basic inviso is not such a huge advantage.

So, I suppose I was wrong, as I was replying to your argument that PvP is broken without invisibility.

Other ways to describe it would be 'uncertain of what you yourself stated', or 'moving the goalposts', like how you demanded IF buffs unawares that they already exist.

>I'm not sure if you read that far back, but the question was posed to revisit Barbarian invisibility since it hasn't changed in quite some time. 3.0 brought a lot of changes to things that haven't changed in quite some time. It's a valid request. Not sure why you don't understand. There's nothing wrong with wanting to revisit polices from the 20th century.

That in and of itself is perfectly reasonable, but given that the Raesh didn't include a 'and we're interested in changing said policies', I'm inclined to find any requests to do so somewhat moot. This argument is akin to asking for skillset changes, like saying "I feel Warmies should be Lore tertiary and Armor secondary". The position is 'survival prime + Moonies', and if you want to argue that that provides an unreasonable advantage to survival prime + moonies, perhaps the issue at hand is that inviso is broken for PvP, not that every guild needs it.

This rather underlines how you move the goalposts. Instead of responding to the part of Tev and my posts that more or less refutes your previous contention, you move onto new issues. Lets back up;
You purported that inviso was an advantage in PvP that barbs should have. I'm being careful to avoid using strong word usage here in case you try and argue that. Your direct quote was:
>Blinking inviso is a huge advantage in PvP. Basic inviso is not such a huge advantage.

To which myself and Tev agreed that if inviso is a huge or 'not such a huge' advantage (I presume you still feel non-blinking inviso is an advantage, but your language is somewhat ambiguous there, so I'm hesitant to make any presumptions about what you're contending), the name of the game is NOT giving inviso to everyone or some people, it is to fix inviso. You called this a straw man, and then make a few fallacious comparisons, such as thieves being able to buff weapons, and barbarians being unable to buff magics.

Now you somewhat addressed the magic buffing point, but it still stands; SoI is a thing now, and plenty of guilds have buffs to tertiary skills. Maybe we should take issue with Clerics, Bards, and Warmies having survival buffs?

>Yea, he should have been more clear - "And no, we're not changing anything, so screw you and your opinions". If he had said that, I'm sure we'd all know the score. It's implied that things are negotiable as long as people stay reasonable.

I mean, you can be obtuse about it all you want, but the answer as to which guilds have inviso was given to you. The answer was 'survival primes + moonies'. If you want to continue arguing about it, at least do so with the understanding that a GM has weighed in on what the official paradigm is.

>GM Jhaliascleric has spoken.

Ah yes, your sarcasm, it makes your point so succinctly.

>>that's not how the grown up world works.

>>Times change Lemmingblade

>>You don't have to be a pre-Socratic philosopher

Please, continue telling us how grown ups act.

---

Uzmam! The Chairman will NOT be pleased to know you're trying to build outside of approved zones. I'd hate for you to be charged the taxes needed to have this place re-zoned. Head for the manor if you're feeling creative.

So at least it looks like we agree reasonable discussions can be had.

If barbs were to get any sort of inviso, what type would it be? How would you guys view it functioning?



Codiax.
Forged Weapons:
http://www.elanthipedia.org/wiki/User:Codiax#Codiax-Forged-Weapons

Summary:

*Thieves have no magic, but can go invisible since they are survival primary.

*Rangers and necromancers have magic, are survival primary and can go invisible.

*Moon mages have magic, are not survival prime, but can go invisible, particularly due to historical reasons.

*Barbarians and the above 4 mentioned guilds all have stealth in their spheres of influence.

*It has been stated that invisibility is linked to stealthiness.

*Some people agree that the policy should be revisited under the new concepts of 3.0; others don't.

Question to GMs: Is this something that can be revisited? If so, fine. If not, fine. We've all presented our cases.

Side question: Will there ever be a spot check vs invisibilty?

Most importantly, thank you for your time and patience.

---

"Brace yourselves, Squanto is going to bleh blah fart fart bleh.." -the player of the character formerly known as Pureblade

>Barbarians and the above 4 mentioned guilds all have stealth in their spheres of influence.

But again, SoI buffing is somewhat besides the point; I agree that the five guilds with stealth included in SoI place Barbs as the only of the group without inviso, but Traders and Empaths don't have a Crafting buff despite being Lore prime, Thieves don't have a skinning buff, Rangers don't get a locksmithing buff, etc., etc., etc...

As an aside, Path of Predator isn't terribly stealthy. It's got one stealth buff, and one anti-stealth ability/debuff. I appreciate that people want to be stealthy, and thus want invisibility, but I don't see how you can look over the Predator abilities and conclude that inviso fits in there.

>Rangers don't get a locksmithing buff, etc., etc., etc...

Yes, they do. Can you just stop?

>Yes, they do. Can you just stop?

Poking around EPedia, it seems wotp does buff locksmithing. Mea culpa. That evidently invalidates everything else.

>> The argument that inviso is part of the predator path is distinctly NOT the argument that Gort was making, with his contention that PvP was hugely advantaged with inviso. Tev even pointed out that this was quite plainly a power grab for PvP purposes. It's not difficult to grasp, but it's not what's being said. Furthermore, the argument that the inviso is part of the predator path is a tenuous argument; as mentioned, SoI is a thing now, and guilds have buffs outside their SoI. That doesn't mean they all get inviso. Unless you feel any guild with a stealth buff should get inviso?

I had a counter-post written, but I closed the window by accident, and unfortunately M&M6 was just more appealing to me than arguing with you.

My stance on inviso is that 'powerful' and 'utility' are two distinct and separate classes of invisibility. I made this point in reference to the ridiculous assertion that 'it was a clear power grab' and that you wouldn't let it go even though I took care in separating the terms and advocated the much less powerful 'utility' inviso in all of my arguments.

Apparently, neither you nor Tev know the difference between the two in PvP. Ok, whatever.

Two points, firstly that 'utility' inviso would be better under a proposed 'general survival feat' system. The survival skill-set is the only one that has no feat system. It seems kinda odd to me that it doesn't, considering that there's all this room for expansion on it. So I thought it would be nice if it had one, and that utility inviso would be a good fit there, since we've established that it's not strictly a magical ability.

Second, assuming that that idea fell through, Predator specialization is still an ideal place for 'utility' inviso to happen. It can be reasoned that the refresh rate of inviso has everything to do with how powerful it is. So just apply the necessary discretion with that as your baseline.

My post on thieves being able to buff all weapons was a dismantling of your assertion that 'it's out of guild's range of proficiency'. The post about not receiving magic buffs was a sarcastic rebuttal to your assertion that 'barbs do it better so it doesn't count'. If you couldn't figure that out, I've got a bridge to sell you.

It's not even really about that this metaphorical 'range' you speak of is highly volatile, has been subject to change on a regular basis, and can be dismantled six ways to Sunday just by looking at what abilities guilds currently have, barbs included. It's that you're both arguing it like it's a code of law, handed down by Moses written in stone, when it's most definitely not. More than anything here, you two acting like surrogate GMs declaring the "is and aint's" of what the GMs will and will not allow is... insulting. We come to discuss and neither of you contribute anything to the discussion - you just railroad it with mindless hyperbole. Shoot first, ask questions later amirite?

You want my honest opinion about my character? I'm bored with PvP in 3.0. I haven't lost a fight in almost a year, and I've fought every person who would go a round with me, including people who are higher circle. Making barbs more powerful is not my intention.

---

IM: Dannyboy00001111

"Fool proof system do not take into account the ingenuity of fools, nor the power of numbers."

>Poking around EPedia, it seems wotp does buff locksmithing. Mea culpa. That evidently invalidates everything else.

The main problem being that you do it frequently. You fail to read entire threads before commenting on them and you post inaccurate information in an attempt to back up your stance.

>My stance on inviso is that 'powerful' and 'utility' are two distinct and separate classes of invisibility. I made this point in reference to the ridiculous assertion that 'it was a clear power grab' and that you wouldn't let it go even though I took care in separating the terms and advocated the much less powerful 'utility' inviso in all of my arguments.

This was by no means made clear by anything you stated in the discussion yesterday. Which is why I quoted you saying 'Blinking inviso is a huge advantage in PvP'. Basic inviso is not such a huge advantage.'. If I was interpreting this statement inaccurately, you should have addressed that the first time I quoted it back to you. But you didn't; this is the first time you've tried to draw a distinction between 'powerful' and 'utility'. This is actually the first time you've used the word 'utility' to describe inviso's place or function or form or theme.

>My post on thieves being able to buff all weapons was a dismantling of your assertion that 'it's out of guild's range of proficiency'. The post about not receiving magic buffs was a sarcastic rebuttal to your assertion that 'barbs do it better so it doesn't count'. If you couldn't figure that out, I've got a bridge to sell you.

Which is why I brought up SoI's and why buffing was mentioned. Mentioning that thieves can buff weapons isn't a dismantling of a 'proficiency' argument, it's just mentioning another set of buffs that some has. Incidentally, isn't the khri system still on 2.0 mechanics? Also,I notice you didn't respond to the point that Bards and Warmies both have a stealth buff; should they get inviso? The point that's being made here is that 'ability to buff stealth' doesn't mean 'guild should get inviso', just like 'ability to buff weapons' doesn't mean guild should get dual load, multi-toss or whirlwind.

>The main problem being that you do it frequently. You fail to read entire threads before commenting on them and you post inaccurate information in an attempt to back up your stance.

And you only post these childish quote snips and insults against posters you have a vendetta against. Hurray, we've both established that we dislike the others posting habits! Tell ya what, I'll go back to ignoring the non-contributions you have to threads, and you can continue being convinced I only post inaccurate information after I 'fail to read entire threads'. We both win! To be frank, I admitted where I made an incorrect assertion. Rather than discard the entirety of my argument, and rather than dispute the singular point that included my incorrect assertion, you could try discussing this matter in good faith. Your ability to go from 0 to ad hominems in a single post is rather uncanny, and if you look back at the discussion, you'll see you're a significant contributor to dragging it into infantile unreasonableness.

Squanto +1

I also don't think it's reasonable to justify anything by what someone else doesn't have like the following...

>> but Traders and Empaths don't have a Crafting buff despite being Lore prime, Thieves don't have a skinning buff, Rangers don't get a locksmithing buff

Chances are Traders and Empaths will get a crafting buff, crafting just came out and the game hasn't caught up yet. As for Thieves and Rangers, that's up to them to discuss what they want in their own folders. None of this has any meaning here.

Also it doesn't even matter "why" one particular person wants invisibility, it's useful to a lot of different scenarios - we need to stop arguing about nothing and move on.

I think the greatest PvP ability is locate!

Invisibility sounds like a mediation in the barb world? Or would it be a form, as if you are continuously moving to remain hidden.


Codiax.
Forged Weapons:
http://www.elanthipedia.org/wiki/User:Codiax#Codiax-Forged-Weapons

>>It's in response to the point that Thieves can buff weapons. If you want to dismiss other guilds buffing/SoI/themes in this discussion, I think that's valid, but recognize that I'm not the only one making the argument.

That's comparing to what someone DOES have, not to what someone Doesn't Have which is what you compared to. If you go by what people don't have then no one gets anything new ever. I guess you could argue that things get taken away from time to time which is true, but that's much less common.

>>why

>>I disagree

If believe it's relevant to discuss what particular reason someone wants invisibility, than you would have to also discuss why YOU don't want others to have it.


Codiax.
Forged Weapons:
http://www.elanthipedia.org/wiki/User:Codiax#Codiax-Forged-Weapons

>So, sure, you get to use invisibility, but you may not be the world's greatest magic-crusher or weapon-master.

I've always loved the idea of specialization within guilds, so I found barb paths in 3.0 to be really interesting.

Using other abilities across all guilds as a gauge, I don't think adding reforming invis at the end of a specialization tree would be uniquely overpowered in PvP if that's a concern. The only thing that might be over the top is dual load with reforming invis, but that has more to do with dual load already being pretty damn mean right now.

Out of curiosity, if reforming invis is off the table for barbs, would reforming stealth be considered or even desired by barbs?