Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Corwin" data-source="post: 336742" data-attributes="member: 1560">Re: Re: Re: Re: Counter pointWrong? Really? You insulted a large group of gamers by associating their mechanical reasons for multiclassing with being a "bad" player. Sorry, but that is rude. My own rudeness stems from having to respond to your snide and condescending attitude.I left if out because it wasn't relevant. You already defined what your opinion of a "good legitimate reason" was. And choosing a class for its abilities wasn't one of them, IYO. So it doesn't change a thing about you statement. The snipped portion of your diatribe was there to tie in your opinion to the topic of ELH feats. My comments were not directed at that particular portion of this thread. Thus, not relevant to my post. (Yes that means I'm being OT. Sue me. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />)Um, make up your mind. You don't care unless you do? Are you saying that it's OK to powergame as long as it isn't at your table? So, basically, it the same as saying it's OK to wipe your but on the carpet like a dog, just not in your house. Those "savages" that powergame don't bother you unless it affects your pristine environment of "real role-playing". I get it.Says you. 3e has made great strides in keeping balance between the classes. It is very difficult to break the system just by multiclassing. And on top of that, most brokenness stems just as much from what a DM does to allow a player to step over the line.So "roleplayers" (BTW, a dubious term to use in trying to distinguish between types of gamers in a RPG) only break the game using multiclassing when they are boring?So rudeness equated to ignorance? I'm glad you are using little words then. I wouldn't want you to strain yourself. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Same can be said for the supposed "pure role-player" who is so concerned with the color and style of his PC's clothing, that he can't live through a battle because he didn't bother to make a character even remotely capable of surviving in any D&D setting. Surprise, most D&D games involve combat! Of course, most gamers are somewhere between the two extremes. They both role-play and build competent PCs using the mechanics of the system.Eccept that we are "bad" players, right? That is what you said after all. Sure they are having fun, but that's because they don't "know better".Yep.Too bad you didn't say anything remotely like that in the first place. Maybe all of this could have been avoided.What does this have to do with our discussion? My problem with your original statement was with your denouncing some of us a "bad" gamers because we pay attention to mechanics when making a PC. That multiclassing was for munchkins unless they had a good, legitimate, "role-playing" reason.Ah, there it is. That's the root of your point. Us "powergamers" are ruining the fun for all you real "role-players". When one of "us" shows up, we wreck it for everyone.Boy, I guess multiclassing really is for munchkins.I hope my extensive and thorough cut-n-pasting was more to your liking this time.Oh, BTW, speaking of leaving out appropriate parts of a post in response, I noticed you didn't go anywhere near my examples and actual points of topic. You just fired off a counter-rant and bit back. Why is that? I'd very much like to see your explanation for the differences between my examples #1 & #2.</blockquote>

Verification