So what makes more sense to you as a stat for melee accuracy: Strength or Dexterity/Agility?
>>43858239
Melee Accuracy (MACC) obviously.
Dec/agility to hit, with str augmenting damage.
>>43858239
Dex/Agi for accuracy, STR for damage, and maybe parry effectiveness
>>43858239
Depends on what you mean by accuracy. In a system with AC, for instance, your "chance to hit" represents both your ability to actually hit the guy *and* your ability to smash his armor and hurt him bad. In a system like that, it might make more sense to use Strength.
In a system where armor is treated as DR and "to-hit" is solely a matter of putting pointy object into the bad guy, maybe Dexterity makes more sense.
There's a billion different sets of rules out there which can be used to make a case one way or another. And then there's always the option of making some weapons Strength-based (maybe a mace or hammer doesn't give a shit about dexterity) and some weapons Dexterity-based.
So who the fuck knows.
>>43858239
Dexterity and strength combined. Because strength determines how fast you can swing it and that is as important as actual aiming when it comes to hitting your target.
>>43858329
>>43858351
>>43858379
This. Some sort of "WS / S" thing like GW and their affiliates go with, or "Agl / Str". One to hit, one to hurt.
>>43858239
Going off real life humans?
Very obviously Strength.
Going off an RPG? I don't know, it depends on the balance around the stats.
>>43858239
DEX+STR for accuracy in a ratio determined by weapon type
AGI+STR for number of hits in a ratio determined by weapon type
DEX+AGI for parry/block/dodge, since a good block massively decreases the force needed to redirect the blow
as a side not bows shouldn't be dex, they rely alot on strength irl
>>43860356
Yeah, they're the same as melee weapons.
But you also have to think about balance.
Minimum strength requirements + Dex modifiers for accuracy.
>>43858239
All of them are kinda crap for accuracy if you follow HEMA.
What matters is FUN.
>>43860543
Strength is heavily linked to muscle control, it would probably be closer to intelligence or even some kind of bow proficiency for aiming.
>>43860572
You're splitting hairs; might as well add a SIGHT stat for aiming too, since being able to see what the fuck you're swinging at is heavily linked to accuracy.
I'm actually working on a system that uses different stats for different types of fighting (with Strength requirements for weapons of different weights).
>Strength
Raw and uncontrolled - you're putting everything you have into every swing of your weapon.
>Dexterity
Quick, erratic strikes, fancy movement, etc - the name of the game here is to move quickly, but in a controlled manner.
>Intellect
A carefully calculated dodge and strike, attack pattern memorization, weakness targeting, etc - an option with a more defensive bent, but it stings when you do get hit.
>>43860603
I'm not splitting hairs, OP asked the question, and I chose to interpret it regardless of pre-conceived notions.
There's no reason to force Dexterity in hand over fist just because that's the way it's always been.
It doesn't fit.
>>43860603
That isn't a bad idea at all.
>>43860736
We could call it perception or somesuch, even.Lots of systems actually have it, it's called Accuracy and Fantasy Age comes to mind
STR: you are so powerful few men can turn your blade aside and few armors absorb the blow
AGI/DEX: Your attacks are so fast and precise that few have time to respond appropriately
INT: You are so learned in the philosophies of battle, guided through careful practice as a means of self-analysis, that your battle methods inch ever closer to perfection.
SEN/WIS: Your reaction time is staggering, and you're able to predict at a glance just how the enemy would respond to any given motion based on their tells and positions, guiding you to make the optimal decision practically on instinct.
CHA: your force of influence is so effective that your feints only reinforce how deftly you are able to play the enemy's thoughts and emotions against them. You make them contract when you expand, and expand when you contract, and when an opening presents itself, the hit comes in its own.
I'll be tucked if I can justify TOU/CON, but my own homebrew lets you pick any other as an attack stat.
Hot opinions incoming.
>In a system where you can aim for specific areas that do more damage;
DEX/AGI for accuracy, STR for base damage.
>In a system where you can't.
DEX/AGI and STR mix.First is superior, like GURPS
>>43858239
I remember a system that did it like
"your melee accuracy stat is bravery+strenght+dexterity divided by 3"
which seemed cool.
I remember ranged accuracy being like cunning+dexterity+agility/3
I think the stat array was
str
constitution
dexterity
agility
intelligence
cunning
bravery
>>43860356
I always had the idea that bows should have a minimum str to be used, but they should have their actual accuracy based on wisdom, since getting the arrow where you want it to go is more instinct then manual dexterity, at least on actual medieval bows which had no way of aiming.
>>43861076
Well, roleplaying bows tend to be more like modern bows. I like the idea of instinct though.
>>43860803
>You make them contract when you expand, and expand when you contract, and when an opening presents itself, the hit comes in its own.
>>43858239
Strength = Base damage and Attack speed
Dexterity= Damage multiplier or Critical chance
Agility= Dodge
>>43858239
Why do people think agility and strength are two separate things?
Like you could actually have a 16 strength 8 agility, or 16 agility with 8 strength. You might have them within the equivalent of a +1 modifier difference in the old 3.PF system, but the differences you can actually make in character builds is retarded.
The whole "big = slow" thing is a retarded myth. Well developed muscles move faster, in terms of baseline "stats" for a person. Anything past that is trained skill, ie practicing martial arts, not a character stat.
Dexterity is something like picking a lock. Something a craftsman should have. The word LITERALLY refers to working with your hands. Lockpicking, trap disarming, that kind of shit. Whomever decided it should give major combat bonuses to make the party trap-checker combat capable did it for game design purposes.
Then where are you factoring in actual weapon skills? Why the fuck is your "ability to hit something" a matter of a "born with it" character stat?
>>43863145
I believe that "agility" stands for reflexes and the muscular strength that allows you to move faster and react quicker
While "strength" is more about being able to lift stuff and it should totally make you swing faster
And "constitution" is the general resilence of your muscles
Each one of those is an aspect of what we know as strength in the real world.
But, if you believe that a powerlifter can move (or at least run) faster than a more nimble sprinter o marathonist then you are wrong.
>>43863343
>Marathon runner = critical dagger attacks
OK m8
Dex forvhit and dodge, str for damage and damage reduction from blocking
I'll just leave this here.
>>43863371
What i mean is that there is a point where "big = slow" but it does not work like in our games.
>Marathon runner = critical dagger attacks
That is a problem of abstraction and the system itself, anon.
Like, "I killed 100 hundred people and leveled up. Now i can do advanced algebra or take a level in a class that has nothing to do with killing"
Chance to hit/ to crit should be handled by the character class or training, not its base stats IMO.
>>43863419
This was one of the images I was looking for here
>>43863145
thanks
>>43861076
>actual medieval bows which had no way of aiming.
Are you retarded?
>>43863343
Sure, at the absolute tip-top of human ability there's a tradeoff between fast and slow twitch fibers. But unless you're an Olympian athlete, it doesn't matter and it's more accurate to roll physical ability into a single stat and represent "agility" as training or the lack thereof in different skills.
>>43858239
Agility is one of the dumbest RPG stats and is way, way too often used to represent shit that is really an acquired skill rather than a physical attribute.
You can be a fat fuck who can't dance or do a cartwheel to save his life and still be an amazing archer, stage magician or locksmith.
The only reason agility is a stat is that in the days of yore someone wanted an arbitrary reason for rogues and warriors to use different weapons, and because people like the idea that strong people have to be slow and clumsy.
In the real world agility is just strength in other muscles than the ones we use for punching people.
>>43863557
Basically this.
Strength or general physical ability is a decent thing to turn into a stat, but most agility related stuff should really be specific skills, not an umbrella stat.
It's very easy to imagine what kind of actions strength aids you in, but agility is this weird hodgepodge that often turns into "The same trait is used for tightrope walking, pickpocketing, and marksmanship"
It's obviously nonsense for someone to be really strong but ONLY good at lifting a specific kind of object (like say, furniture), but really easy to imagine someone being an incredible dancer but a terrible archer, or a lardy fuck who can do incredible sleight of hand.
>>43863557
>But unless you're an Olympian athlete
Characters tend to be at that level.
Anyway, i am not disagreeing with you. It is a problem in how games try to represent the real world.
I use this method
Main Stat:
>Body
Sub-Stats:
>Resilence: Resistance, pain threshhold, Time it takes to bleed out, How much magic you can cast etc.
>Strength (Might change it to Force or something): Damage, Attack speed, Bonus to movement speed, bonus to body size (Up to ceirtain point), Chance to resist magical "recoil" (That fireball DOES obey the opposing forces law)
>Skill: Hand-Eye coordination, Sleight of hand, Footwork, Twitch reflexes, Chance to overcome disadvantages (Like uneven terrrain), ability to strike ceirtain points (Be it to parry or to critical strike), aiming (Either ranged or magic)
So Cardio, Strength and Dexterity. If that makes sense.
When you level up you add points to the Main Stats, every 2 points the Substats recieve a bonus (Because in real life is hard to train just ONE thing without getting better in others) then, depending on how many points you have in the Main one you get a number of points to spend on the sub-stats (To simulate more specific training).
It is a work in progress.
>>43858239
In a system that isn't stupid where "missing" doesn't mean the same thing as "hitting" Dexterity should grant a to hit adjustment, definitely not Strength.
In D&D without house rules, yeah okay Strength because you're not rolling to hit, you're rolling to hurt.
>>43858239
Whatever your primary attack stat is, because the protagonist should always attack with their highest stat. Pre-mearls Melee-Training (the one that didn't nerf your damage for taking it) is always in my suite of automatic feats when I run a game.
>Drops the mic
>>43863419
Haha he suck a dick!
>>43863557
you might not be an athlete but your a fucking adventurerer
I honestly think this is one thing 3.5 got pretty good. You could use dex weapons but it was pretty limited without spending feats.
I play 5e now and I kind of dislike how powerful finesse weapons are and how kind of limiting they are.
It encourages a lot of classes and character builds to essentially ignore strength.
>>43858239
weapon skill
>>43867290
Sorry I mean you still need to take the weapon finesse feat, I just mean that gave a bare minimum benefit of using dex to hit only
>>43863145
This, DEX as a catch-all stat for everything from using ranged weapons, to sneaking, to lockpicking, to dodging, etc. makes literally zero sense, and is only set up this way due to design compromises.
>>43863718
5e solves this by straight up saying in the book your DM can allow the use of acrobatics or athletics somewhat interchangeably.
I think thats cool. But like I said here >>43867290
I just hate that finesse weapons encourage people to dump strength entirely if they want to focus on dex.
it makes sense in context of the system because you have so few resources for character building (most classes get 5 ASI/feats total, with fighter getting the most at I think 7). But it also sucks because... like I said... theres a ton of 8 strength high dex characters out there who I guess are as good at fighting as a high strength character, and the drawbacks of having low strength skill wise are pretty lessened as well.
even a low strength rogue can be really good at grappling (or bard) because they can just get expertise in athletics.
>>43867332
i don't agree that dexterity as catch all doesnt make sense.
what would they do? roll finesse skills into a SKILL stat, roll dex to AC into dexterity, and roll weapon to hit into >>43867295 weapon skill?
(I actually like the idea of weapon skill)
at a certain point dexterity makes a lot of sense as a stat, that essentially covers what you want out of it, without making a need for extraneous stats. its cuts down stat bloat. though like i said in 5e i think the finesse property of a lot of weapons is a huge flaw in the system.
i think my ideal system would be a big cross between 3.5 and 5e... more feats and character choices and stuff, but also I feel as if 5e is really well balanced class by class. high level wizards are still crazy, but they feel downright weak in the beginning and only really come to their own at probably the halfway mark of most campaigns, where they are still working with pretty limited resources. plus concentration is a big game changer.
i like how conan d20 did combat as well, though I never actually played it so i can't speak from personal experience
>>43867295
This is the only sensible way of doing it. As a general rule, base stats shouldn't affect combat directly, but only through associated skills.
>>43867434
Plenty of systems that work way better than DnD have no DEX, and no stat bloat as a result of that. In general, DnD stats are non-sensical and terribly designed. It's just that everyone is used to the way DnD does things, so they learn to cope with it.
>>43858239
If we want to "make sense", wouldn't it be better to remove agility to get rid of the strength/speed dichotomy? Speed requires strength so the STR stat could be used to refer to both punching power and punching speed (again, often they're the same).
That would lead to a weir set of stats then. With STR, CON, INT, WIS, CHA the STR stat would govern everything physical except your HP.
I like what Eclipse Phase does with stats. It's not perfect, but it makes much more sense to me than what DnD uses.
Cognition (COG) is your aptitude for problem-solving, logical analysis, and understanding. It also includes memory and recall.
Coordination (COO) is your skill at integrating the actions of different parts of your morph to produce smooth, successful movements. It includes manual dexterity, fine motor control, nimbleness, and balance.
Intuition (INT) is your skill at following your gut instincts and evaluating on the fly. It includes physical awareness, cleverness, and cunning.
Reflexes (REF) is your skill at acting quickly. This encompasses your reaction time, your gut-level response, and your ability to think fast.
Savvy (SAV) is your mental adaptability, social intuition, and proficiency for interacting with others. It includes social awareness and manipulation.
Somatics (SOM) is your skill at pushing your morph to the best of its physical ability, including the fundamental utilization of the morph’s strength, endurance, and sustained positioning and motion.
Willpower (WIL) is your skill for self-control, your ability to command your own destiny.
>>43858239
Someday i will play a Gorilla in D&D.
>>43858239
jimmies
>>43867878
>I like what Eclipse Phase does
As someone who plays Eclipse Phase, you are really new to the game.
Aside from stats providing direct and solid basis for skill rolls for governing skills where said stats can be the biggest chunk of the roll in a system with a maximum being a complete fucking disaster in terms of cheesing optimization-
-then there's the entirety of the skill lineups themselves collapsing into the black hole that is unbalanced equipment and gameplay options not to mention when combined with the lack of significant leveling-
-aaaaand I'm going into tangents. Holy fuck did this game piss me off. Been playing it pretty much since release.
The long and short of it is:
Don't value stats in all skill rolls equally and flat.
>>43861076
Like in Shadowrun them ?
>>43868181
I just think that EP attrbutes are more semantically coherent in comparison to DnD. I haven't said anything about how they work mechanically.
>>43868243
>semantically coherent in comparison
>how they work mechanically
Unfortunately related for EP. Top-down fallacy of design, part of the gameplay options being out of whack. Like they carved in stone those stats
"because it sounds like it makes sense" before they tested how anything interacts. Only looks good on paper.
>>43867295
This is a better alternative.
Before we get too hard on Dexterity, you can think of it like muscle training.
You can get Strength high by just lifting weights, but actually going out and fighting is what makes your reflexes faster, even playing sports makes your spatial awareness much better, balance muscles come from strength training but actually balancing tunes it.
Being strong does not automatically mean being faster in a meaningful way, in combat specifically, I've seen experienced fighters who are weak beat a huge man senseless.
>>43868284
The more I think about it, strength is what you are, and dexterity is all things you get from experience/muscle memory.
>>43858239
Neither. I think the accuracy should be determined by skillpoints/baseattackbonus/whatever and Str should only determine the damage of a melee attack.
>>43858239
P.P.
Physical Prowess.
I like games that separate factors in a roll entirely.
Pretty sure Iron Claw became my favorite RPG just for this.
Would it make sense to have Agility and Dexterity be separate stats? One for whole body actions and one for fine motor skills.
>>43868346
Yes, but it might also be cumbersome based on skills.
>>43868280
Quite possible. Designing skills first might be a good way of going about. While we are at it, how do you feel about designing skills based on generality (skills are roughly equivalent in terms of what they cover, i.e. ranged weapons, melee weapons, etc.) vs designing them based on what comes up in play often, irrespective of generality (i.e. having both use rope and diplomacy be skills)?
>>43868346
>stats
why not skills outright?
Agility is reaction but reactions are trained. The martial artist will not have the same trained reactions as the jockey or the archer.
Dexterity tasks are primarily the same with familiarity of the task being the biggest component.
What they're meant to represent though are characters with an inherent penalty in things. Like someone with flipper hands. Yet a Gnoll can somehow eventually level up "intelligence" well past low level humans when there should be a much lower peak performance for it.
Physique should be a stat
Willpower should be a stat
Dexterity should be an unchangable modifier out of char gen (Flipper hands)
Intelligence should be unchangable out of char gen (A dog can be trained but only so smart)
Agility is just represented in the skill ratings
>>43868390
I was just reading up on a system that uses Body, Mind and Soul as base stats, and I love the elegance of it. No idea how it works in practice, and how skills work yet. I also like the idea that nature/attributes vs nurture/skills proportion should lean much more towards the skill side, but an argument can be made that there should be some way of highlighting if someone has an abnormal physique/intellect.
Maybe have strength/dex be perks, like "Exceptionally Strong/Fast" etc that add bonuses to checks., instead of being stats?
>>43868375
Packages. Some RPGs do this like Shadowrun or
>>43868335
Iron Claw does as well and is a cleaner example as a mixed system of both "classes" and "classless" using "career" packages.
You roll a mixed pool and the highest die is the important one. You're generally rolling:
[_always______] Stat
[when applicable] Career
[when applicable] Skill
[when applicable] Bonus
"Stat" is just Strength/Speed/Mind/Will and can't go past 1d12 and are the least cost-effective to raise
"Career" applies to a multiple relevant skills and a number of feats and can't go past 1d12 (but you can take multiple careers) and you always start with one
"Skill" can get multiple dice past the first 1d12 but is less XP efficient to train than career packages when factoring in the total value of the packages
So if you want to you can dump all of your spare time into mastering rope tricks,
BUT "doing my job" is a single package you can raise.
Other systems use point-buy packages, like in Shadowrun. I liked Ironclaw they made career experience like stats and skills and married it into the game design wholly.
>>43858239
Skill with the weapon, agility AND dextery
>>43868471
Eh, I would be fine with packages, if they are built besides or atop a point buy system. I don't like class based systems.
>>43868558
I also don't like things because other people on the internet told me they're bad anon, besties?
>>43868571
What are you even talking about?
>>43868674
Just commenting on sweeping, ignorant statements.
It's funny when people don't put any thought into their opinions.
>I don't like vegetables.
>That's an insanely diverse group, which ones, anon?
>Vegetables.
>>43868705
Expressing your preference is not making a statement/claim about some state of afairs within the world. Funny you should mention vegetables, since vegetarians are a thing, and they don't like/eat meat in general. I am sure you also don't like entire genres of games/movies/music/etc., and would have no problem saying you dislike them in general.
>>43868705
Are you okay, anon? People aren't ignorant because they don''t share your opinions. And an opinion is no more or less valid because it's broad. I don't know why you would think that. Even your strawman example is actually quite reasonable. Plenty of people don't like vegetables.
>>43868571
>>43868705
He didn't even say class systems are bad, just that he doesn't like them.
You need to grow up.
>>43868741
>>43868760
You're confusing the points, just because someone is vegetarian doesn't mean that they actually don't like meat, and just because someone says that he doesn't like vegetables doesn't mean they don't like vegetables, they have just formed their opinion using less logic and experience than what is reasonable for an adult.
"I don't like brussel sprouts therefore I hate all 1000 other vegetables."
You called just having a package a class-based game, unless it's already a part of point-buy. Honestly even stating the generalization that you don't like x is wildly faulty. Someone who says they don't like Country Music would still probably like 10+% of the music.
"Muh sacred opinions" is logically inept.
>>43868760
>>43868774
Logical fallacies arguments are my favorite!
You should look up what a strawman is because you just used it very, very incorrectly.
>>43868828
It's his opinion so he can use strawman to mean whatever he wants, anon.
>>43868808
You don't seem to understand the fact that people are not obliged to fulfill some arbitrary criteria that you randomly outlined in order to form an opinion.
I can dislike country music on principle, even though if I listened to a hundred country acts, I might find something I like. Except then my situation will have changed, and I would hold different opinions than I held previously. I am not obliged to do so however, and keep disliking it in principle, for whatever reason I please.
>>43861515
Hahah, it's an only slightly altered Bruce Lee quote. Like, I cut 2 or 3 minor words.
>>43869102
This.
It's not accurate to use vegetables anyways. It's very clear the first anon only doesn't like class-based because someone on the internet told him they're bad.
Hell, he probably conflates any random thing he doesn't like with it being "class-based" That's just 4chan standard.
Opinions based on nothing are still just as valid as opinions based on something in reality.
>>43858239
DEX = accuracy, STR = effect, with weapons having Minimum Strengths and suffering penalized use if you do not meet them.
>>43869102
What? Don't be stupid. I know people aren't obliged and never said they were, I very clearly said that I think that it's not very mature to come to conclusions without using logic or sense
At no point is this about what people have to do.
I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings anon, they're as real as your stupidity and no one deserves to feel bad over underperforming.
>>43858239
Dex. An olympic weight lifter may be able to swing a sword hard enough to chop you in half but that doesnt mean he can carve his initial into your chest like zorro
>>43863620
Uh... I mean, I agree with you, but aren't you mixing up "agility" and "dexterity" as game terms? I've never heard of a game using "agility" as a lockpicking stat, for example, but your complaint makes perfect sense for "dexterity."
>>43869822
>>43868808
>>43868828
>>43868842
>>43869156
>>43869231
What went wrong in your life? Someone expressed an opinion and you go off one one? That's just sad.
>>43868571
He didn't even say anything about why he didn't like them. Way to jump to conclusions.
>>43870234
>>43870268
What does it mean to go off one one?
Also, man, you seem to be getting really angry over someone criticizing your stupidity, what went wrong in your life?
>>43858239
Dexterity, but weapons have a "minimum strength" rating, if your strength is less than that you take a penalty on your attack roll. And armor should be represented as DR, a probability to negate/halve damage, or a percentage reduction in damage.
>>43861076
>>43861364
What's the difference between medieval and modern bows?
>>43863371
Wouldn't a marathon runner really be mainly reliant on Constitution? I mean, that's how it works in d20, dexterity itself has no effect on how fast you can run (it's not lower-body strength, it's more a measure of reaction time) but Constitution determines how long you can run before getting exhausted.
>>43870303
"To go off on [a person, persons, object, or group]" is to attack him/her/them/it with words, viscously, usually at length. It can be used with the connotation of an insane rant, as it is likely being used here and in this example sentence:
>Dude, quit going off about the Illuminati. You sound like a crazy person, ranting like that.
Compare to "[to go] off," i.e., as it is used to refer to detonation:
>The explosive in the second tower went off as the Illuminati toasted each other in their bunker.
>>43870933
>viscously
Man, why are oozes such assholes?
>>43870949
Son of a bitch... I must have checked that post for spelling errors three times before I posted it. Ugh
>>43870933
Doesn't that make the sentence
>"And you go of on?"
I wonder what they were trying to convey. Language is tricky.
>>43858862
The strength of the hit doesn't affect how easily it lands, only how much it hurts...
Hitting fast, on the other hands, leaves the target less room to dodge/parry/react.
>>43858239
Either
>>43872451
There's a whole thread about what strength is, read and try reformulating what you said.
>>43858239
Why not have weapon skill solely determine accuracy, and strength determine damage?
That way Dexterity/Agility doesn't become too overpowered or all encompassing of a attribute.
>>43858239
>Posting Anima's breakdown of the three.
Strength
>Melee damage, specifically, a bonus applied to the flat base damage of the weapon.
>Ranged damage too. Throwing weapons have no cap, Bows use your STR bonus, but need to be higher quality to withstand higher str characters, Crossbows and guns have an innate strength.
>Projectile range. At high strength, you can throw a javelin a few MILES.
DEX
>Attack. How well you can maneuver your weapon into someone.
>Block. How well you can guide your weapon or shield to intercept blows.
>Initiative.
Agility
>Dodging. Being fast enough on your feet to slip under that swinging hammer, or to narrowly avoid that bullet.
>Initiative.
>>43871291
>Doesn't that make the sentence
>>"And you go of on?"
I'm afraid I can't make heads or tails of what YOU'RE trying to say here, either. I believe what you may have run into is a sentence similar to "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously." That is, a sentence which is gramatically correct but semantically meaningless.
What THAT poster, above me, was trying to convey, was "Someone expressed an opinion, and you ((rant incessantly at him or her))? That's just sad," which was pretty clear from the context to be frank.
>>43876960
When you're overcome with impotent rage you can't type correctly, but the intent is often obvious.
Intent matters more than the ability to be intelligible.
>>43876960
Where were you confused? I can click the post chain you quoted and
>I wonder what they were trying to convey
Is as clear as language gets. Is it a subtle English thing?
>>43877853
>When you're overcome with impotent rage you can't type correctly, but the intent is often obvious.
Yes, that's certainly true.
>>43877951
I mean, the two lines I quoted
>Doesn't that make the sentence
>>"And you go of on?"
Are confusing to me, because it seems that "make" is missing an indirect object: the sentence is missing what the sentence is being made -into-, which I'm assuming was omitted because the phrase as given
>"Doesn't that make the sentence 'And you go of on'?
doesn't make a lot of sense. It's also possible that I am misunderstanding the use of the pronoun "that" in this phrase, as it's not entirely clear if it is referring to my definition of "to go off on" or something else.
The fact that that poster did not understand what was trying to be conveyed was perfectly clear: less clear was their use of "they," which did not have a clear object to refer to but which I assumed referred to the person they were originally referring to or a hypothetical person saying "And you go of on," which is not a semantically coherent sentence.
>>43878678
I think the green text is supposed to be his/her way of quoting and is "to go off on," or actually, he/she even used quotes.
It doesn't make sense with of or with off, but I don't believe that's why he/she expressed confusion.
