Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="KDLadage" data-source="post: 47143" data-attributes="member: 88">The fact that is seemed that you were reading an argument from soemplace else and attributing it to me -- such as the Sorcerer argument.I notice that you halt the quote for me at the Barbarian... the interesting use of feats portion was more applied to the Ranger (Track) and so on...Look, I have no beef with you, it just seems as though you want to agrue against something I have never tried to argue for.I would niether add nor cut any feats to model the sub-class. Just as the creators of 3e did not feel the need to add feats to simulate an Illusionist and a Necromancer...Close, yes. There, no. The main things I would do is place them all under teh same class heading, define them as fighting types, and not allow multiclassing between them -- just like you cannot multiclass between the Illusionist and the Necromancer... there are other things I would do. But like I said, I am not entirerly certain it is even a better idea -- just the way I would have done it. Nothing more.Yes, it was an exageration. And this does not change the fact that just because you cannot see how it might be done without adding feats, does not mean that I have somehow argued for the inclusion of additional feats. I never said that new feats would be needed. And I can still see how it could easilly be done without them.No problem. Appology gladly accepted. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Yes it was. I offer my most humble appologies for that remark, and a few others from those posts.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="KDLadage, post: 47143, member: 88"] The fact that is seemed that you were reading an argument from soemplace else and attributing it to me -- such as the Sorcerer argument. I notice that you halt the quote for me at the Barbarian... the interesting use of feats portion was more applied to the Ranger (Track) and so on... Look, I have no beef with you, it just seems as though you want to agrue against something I have never tried to argue for. I would niether add nor cut any feats to model the sub-class. Just as the creators of 3e did not feel the need to add feats to simulate an Illusionist and a Necromancer... Close, yes. There, no. The main things I would do is place them all under teh same class heading, define them as fighting types, and not allow multiclassing between them -- just like you cannot multiclass between the Illusionist and the Necromancer... there are other things I would do. But like I said, I am not entirerly certain it is even a better idea -- just the way I would have done it. Nothing more. Yes, it was an exageration. And this does not change the fact that just because you cannot see how it might be done without adding feats, does not mean that I have somehow argued for the inclusion of additional feats. I never said that new feats would be needed. And I can still see how it could easilly be done without them. No problem. Appology gladly accepted. :) Yes it was. I offer my most humble appologies for that remark, and a few others from those posts. [/QUOTE]

Verification