Difference between revisions of "Rules talk:Focused Offense"
Talisantia (Talk | contribs) m |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
NO usage of PD? For one, that's a crock. For two, that is the precise opposite of how I was told a year ago to handle it when I specifically asked Kyle. I'd be willing to accept double damage to PD - that was how I played it before I asked Kyle for clarification - but I think NO PD is too harsh and unfair unless the same rule applies to mage barriers as well. And, as has been pointed out, the psionic equivalent does not suspend all other forms of durability while it's used. I don't know if this is someone's unwritten idea of "how it was always supposed to be" and that's why the change was never announced, but it DIRECTLY contradicts what I was told by staff and I think it's unbalanced and ill-thought-out. [[User:Talisantia|Talisantia]] 16:18, 23 December 2006 (CST) | NO usage of PD? For one, that's a crock. For two, that is the precise opposite of how I was told a year ago to handle it when I specifically asked Kyle. I'd be willing to accept double damage to PD - that was how I played it before I asked Kyle for clarification - but I think NO PD is too harsh and unfair unless the same rule applies to mage barriers as well. And, as has been pointed out, the psionic equivalent does not suspend all other forms of durability while it's used. I don't know if this is someone's unwritten idea of "how it was always supposed to be" and that's why the change was never announced, but it DIRECTLY contradicts what I was told by staff and I think it's unbalanced and ill-thought-out. [[User:Talisantia|Talisantia]] 16:18, 23 December 2006 (CST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :I don't remember there being the "no PD" restriction back when you asked me, so that's all I have to say about that part. | ||
| + | :While we're complaining about this tech, can I reiterate my complaint that dividing durability by 2 is retarded? :) [[User:Tiryst|Tiryst]] 21:02, 23 December 2006 (CST) | ||
Revision as of 20:02, 23 December 2006
NO usage of PD? For one, that's a crock. For two, that is the precise opposite of how I was told a year ago to handle it when I specifically asked Kyle. I'd be willing to accept double damage to PD - that was how I played it before I asked Kyle for clarification - but I think NO PD is too harsh and unfair unless the same rule applies to mage barriers as well. And, as has been pointed out, the psionic equivalent does not suspend all other forms of durability while it's used. I don't know if this is someone's unwritten idea of "how it was always supposed to be" and that's why the change was never announced, but it DIRECTLY contradicts what I was told by staff and I think it's unbalanced and ill-thought-out. Talisantia 16:18, 23 December 2006 (CST)
- I don't remember there being the "no PD" restriction back when you asked me, so that's all I have to say about that part.
- While we're complaining about this tech, can I reiterate my complaint that dividing durability by 2 is retarded? :) Tiryst 21:02, 23 December 2006 (CST)
