Please respond to the question that I actually asked rather than attempting to change the subject: How is stealth unlike Ignis Divine, despite him spending half his time using stealth?
Being absent from the sky does not actually require a Stealth roll, just like a person being absent from a room / city / continent does not require a Stealth roll, so you're using a faulty premise here.
As an example: there is not a number of dice you could roll to find my post on page 10 of this thread, because there are currently zero posts by me on page 10 of this thread. That's not my epic Stealth skills at work.
Ah, I see.
You meant that a Solar won't be better than all of her underlings, servants, and vassals, at everything.
Well, that's quite true. A Solar won't learn everything. A diplomat who favours a bow might be less skilled with a blade than his bodyguards.
That doesn't mean that his potential is less, though. It's also not a good argument for limiting the areas of her development.
If a Solar chooses to invest Exp, however, they absolutely should match everyone in that field who's equally invested.
Two things are going on here.
1/ I am saying "This is how I would like the mechanics to work"; and
2/ I am saying that I think that my preference is supported by the setting's flavor.
In part, you're arguing against my mechanical preferences by using the current 2e / 3e mechanics, which are not particularly relevant to a discussion of preferences. So I'm largely trying to put those aside. I don't think "It works like this" is a relevant argument to "it SHOULD work like that", nor do I see much productive coming from you on that front, so I'd prefer to not spend time on that.
In this specific case, I'd argue that the Solar might be able to best his soldiers (not fellow officers) one-on-one, but he would not actually
make a better soldier than the Terrestrials. Which is to say, I'd argue that a Solar Captain with a platoon of Dragonbloods ought to be able to match or exceed a platoon of 100% Solars.
That's mischaracterizing my argument. Drastically, in fact.
To the point that it seems deliberate. Don't accuse me of failing to engage your point unless you can honestly say that you won't.
I'm reading you as best I can, but I'll need you to meet me half way.
If something seems off, maybe instead of trying to legally poke holes in it, you could ask about the dissonance. Maybe even leave off the dismissive tone.
Mm. Or, perhaps, that two people can argue without one of them acting as if his inability to clarify his points was the fault of his opponent.
I look forward to seeing you lead by example.
Would you kindly explain, rather than dodge the question?
I asked you what you wanted explained, specifically, and you came back with what looks like an irrelevant quote. So uh. Not dodging. It's just that there's not actually an argument close to where you're trying to dig.
If you wish to critique my debating methods, make sure that yours are above reproach.
Oh hell the fuck no. I'm going to aim for honest and earnest, and leave "above reproach" to fictional Mary-Sues.
I really hope you're not asserting in some back-handed way that YOU are above reproach. Confirm you're not asserting that and then we can continue.
