Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sacrosanct" data-source="post: 6464542" data-attributes="member: 15700">Because it's wrong.&nbsp; That's why.Speaking of reading, I strongly suggest you read the DMG.&nbsp; Page 63 specifically.&nbsp; Because you are wrong.&nbsp; EVERY speaking creature can and may talk to you.&nbsp; And the reaction roll only results in outright combat in the minority of those situations.&nbsp; Again, with KotBL, you are completely ignoring the things in there like the goblin/ogre relationship.&nbsp; Last time we played that, we offered the ogre more, and he fought for us.At this point, the more you post, the more I'm convinced you know nothing about D&amp;D's first 25 years.&nbsp; I know that sounds harsh, and I apologize if it does.&nbsp; But people keep pointing out to you how and why you are mistaken, and you keep ignoring it and doubling down with this silly position you have.&nbsp; We've pointed to actual rules.&nbsp; We've cited A LOT of text.&nbsp; And we've provided page #s.&nbsp; Speaking of, I'm really not sure why Ridley's Cohort keeps saying he's not seeing evidence.&nbsp; Not sure what else can be provided beyond actual text and page #s.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sacrosanct, post: 6464542, member: 15700"] Because it's wrong. That's why. Speaking of reading, I strongly suggest you read the DMG. Page 63 specifically. Because you are wrong. EVERY speaking creature can and may talk to you. And the reaction roll only results in outright combat in the minority of those situations. Again, with KotBL, you are completely ignoring the things in there like the goblin/ogre relationship. Last time we played that, we offered the ogre more, and he fought for us. At this point, the more you post, the more I'm convinced you know nothing about D&D's first 25 years. I know that sounds harsh, and I apologize if it does. But people keep pointing out to you how and why you are mistaken, and you keep ignoring it and doubling down with this silly position you have. We've pointed to actual rules. We've cited A LOT of text. And we've provided page #s. Speaking of, I'm really not sure why Ridley's Cohort keeps saying he's not seeing evidence. Not sure what else can be provided beyond actual text and page #s. [/QUOTE]

Verification