Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mike Sullivan" data-source="post: 996119" data-attributes="member: 9824">No, Loki, I really didn't.  I may not have read your mind, but I've consistently responded to what you said on this thread.  You harped on, and on, and on, and on about ASF reduction.  I mentioned in a throw-away comment that I wasn't really talking about your harping on, and on, and on, and on about ASF reduction -- but that I was responding to another poster altogether!Now, that you've decided that when you harped on, and on, and on about ASF reduction, what you really meant was that you were harping on, and on, and on about some unnamed "flavor" ability that you haven't come up with any other examples for, it's:1.  Not my fault for not telepathically understanding that.2.  Even if I did somehow know that whenever you said, "ASF Reduction," you meant, "a generic ability," using your OWN shorthand for a "a generic ability," in a comment about what I'm NOT talking about, in a reply NOT TO YOU, hardly constitutes "misstating your entire position, intention, and most of your comments on this thread."There's a strawman for the ages.  Nice set up to the idea that any class must either be "perfectly balanced," or will "fall apart."Not to mention the segue from talking about a significant ability to arguably the least powerful feat in the game.You know, I won't think less of you if you just post something about, "Let's agree to disagree."  I will think less of you if your posts increasingly become diversionary tactics ("Mike doesn't really understand me!") and logical fallacies (the strawman argument).That's possibly the most ludicrous statement I've seen this week.  Surely you don't seriously think that a GM who globally disallowed PrC's is against "specialization or expansion of abilities."  I mean, unless he also disallows levelling.1.  I am sympathetic to those who say that they don't think that Fighter/Wizards (or similar classes) should work.  Broadly speaking, I disagree with them, but it's a matter of taste.2.  However, according to the design team, the lack of effective fighter/wizard multiclassing was not a goal of the 3e design team, but a bug in the system.  If someone could come up with a sufficiently elegent solution to the problem in the core multiclassing rules, they'd implement it.3.  Thus, no, it doesn't go without saying that a GM who is opposed to traditional PrC's is opposed to effective Fighter/Wizard multiclassing.4.  As an example, I am broadly speaking opposed to traditional PrC's (I would have perhaps a few narrow specializations that actually reflected actual groups in my campaign world, but not the dozens of "official" ones).  At this point, knowing what I do about the EK, I would be okay with adding it in as an exception to my usual feeling that PrC's would have to be tightly bound to my campaign world.Which large chunk of rules?  The wholly optional PrC's?No, I don't think it's at all silly to discuss D&D with the assumption that a large number of GM's are skeptical of a given optional rule.Restating your thesis over and over is not an argument for your thesis.</blockquote>

Verification