Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Corwin" data-source="post: 339113" data-attributes="member: 1560">Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Counter pointI appreciate your trying to clarify your point. And if that is indeed what you are doing, cool. But this new post is soooo not anything like what you originally posted.I understand this is a difficult medium to relate ideas in. So please explain how you associated your original statement to the one you just made.For sake of completeness (and I won't snip any off this time <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&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />), here's the post that originally ticked me off:Now, this is pretty clear. You aren't saying that it is only inappropriate to base leveling decisions on class abilities when no one else in the group is. It seems obvious you are saying that it makes them a &quot;bad&quot; player all the time. The's no conditionality to your statement. A very insulting statement, IMO. That's what I took offense to. I'd still like to hear the difference between the two examples I gave previously. It seems clear you feel multiclassing for the class features is &quot;bad&quot;. Please explain your reasoning. I don't see a difference between them, in the end. Especially when any half-decent player worth his salt, is going to be able to &quot;reverse engineer&quot; his IC reasons for taking whatever the heck class he wants for his PC. I'm sure I could come up with at least as good a role-playing reason for my hypothetical 4th level fighter to take that level of monk as you could just to simply take that 5th level of wizard. So, what's the difference?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Corwin, post: 339113, member: 1560"] [b]Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Counter point[/b] I appreciate your trying to clarify your point. And if that is indeed what you are doing, cool. But this new post is soooo not anything like what you originally posted. I understand this is a difficult medium to relate ideas in. So please explain how you associated your original statement to the one you just made. For sake of completeness (and I won't snip any off this time ;)), here's the post that originally ticked me off: Now, this is pretty clear. You aren't saying that it is only inappropriate to base leveling decisions on class abilities when no one else in the group is. It seems obvious you are saying that it makes them a "bad" player all the time. The's no conditionality to your statement. A very insulting statement, IMO. That's what I took offense to. I'd still like to hear the difference between the two examples I gave previously. It seems clear you feel multiclassing for the class features is "bad". Please explain your reasoning. I don't see a difference between them, in the end. Especially when any half-decent player worth his salt, is going to be able to "reverse engineer" his IC reasons for taking whatever the heck class he wants for his PC. I'm sure I could come up with at [b]least[/b] as good a role-playing reason for my hypothetical 4th level fighter to take that level of monk as you could [b]just[/b] to simply take that 5th level of wizard. So, what's the difference? [/QUOTE]

Verification