Talk:Broken Window (3.5e Maneuver)

RandomEdit

"If they fail the Will save, they cannot be displeased in any way about this destruction."

Wut?

I'm not even complaining about the effect being too strong or nothing, it's just.... wut? -- Eiji-kun 03:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Why would they be unhappy about it? The destruction of their artifact with which they were going to bring about world peace is giving an economic boost to the adventurers they'll have to hire to find another one, after all. Also, "wut?" is about what I felt the last time someone tried to use the Broken Window Fallacy to justify something, so this must be a job well done. --Foxwarrior 03:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

But that doesn't even make any sense. How can th- wait... fallacy?

Checks... it's Eloquent Speech X-Class

...ha. That suddenly makes a lot more sense. I don't know the fallacy but I get it now. Clever boy. -- Eiji-kun 03:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Basically, the Broken Window Fallacy says that the whole hiring adventurers bit he went on about doesn't actually grant a net benefit to society from the standpoint of money because the money used to hire the adventurers are being spent on the adventurers. Basically, the guy with the thing being broken is more or less just collapsing all the possible uses he had for that money (buying a swanky new +4 glaive, a planar slave, etc.) into just the one possibility that he ends up using (hiring the adventurers). The Will save is to avoid falling into the fallacy.

On a side note, I should remember to sign my posts ever. --Undead_Knave 10:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)