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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="reapersaurus" data-source="post: 936579" data-attributes="member: 1194">Funny you mention this point, slime.I'll quote my email to clockwork after he said NO to my inclusion of MoF's Spelldancer, even after he approved it multiple times up till then:a snip from his email:a portion of my reply, proving my compliance with his demands: So you see, I did exactly what you are saying I should have.However, for your information, the Singh Rager is not a loophole, or abusing anything.As I quoted last post, everyone knew that clockwork approved the Rager, and that I was interested in it.47: I needed the Rager cause I was planning on a shield-charging paladin-type. And it wasn't "outside of the rules", as I showed.There is a big difference between clockwork approving one more PrC for everybody to use, and him allowing Midnight to get a ECL 23+ creature for 10 levels, and no Advantage cost.There's likewaise a big difference to allow Macallan to disregard the restriction on Wildshaping which keeps it balanced. (Hell, that one ability alone is far more powerful than anything the broken Spelldancer could provide as a benefit, yet you don't see a disparity or a problem with it?)If you don't see the differences, than I don't know what else to do to make it clear.green slime - you seem to attribute some altruistic motives to clockwork's efforts in the game, and further attribute his mistakes as just that: Mistakes.I do not share your opinion, based on personal experience (which if I get the urge, I will detail).We will have to agree to disagree on that.</blockquote>

Verification