Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Nemesis Destiny" data-source="post: 5533992" data-attributes="member: 98255">*I* didn't state it as fact. I repeated what *others* were arguing, WITHOUT stating which &quot;side&quot; I come out on. Don't put words in my mouth.EDIT: I just noticed your edit. Thank you for not putting words in my mouth.I agree that the pirate captain subtopic is needlessly arcane and nitpicky. This all smacks of schoolyard my-dad-can-beat-up-your-dad aurochs dung.I fail to see how your beef with 4e wizards is a &quot;more prevalent&quot; flaw.&nbsp;&nbsp;I never said you weren't allowed to change the subject, or implied that anyone's permission is required. This thread has done it countless times. If you feel that slamming the 4e treatment of the wizard class is &quot;more relevant&quot; then that's your perogative. But it smacks of the same kind of edition warring that the pro-3.x crowd is accusing the fighter-bashers of.&nbsp;Feel free to think it unfair all you like. I'm not telling you what to think.I removed the latter part of your post from my quote because it wasn't relevant to my point, and seemed like a disingenuous afterthought attempt to make it seem like you weren't &quot;picking on&quot; an edition. That was my interpretation anyway. If that wasn't your intent, I guess I misread you.Though I do disagree with your analysis of 4e wizards, I have no intention of debating it because it really comes down to playstyle preferences and individual interpretation of what makes a given archetype most resemble its literary equivalent.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Nemesis Destiny, post: 5533992, member: 98255"] *I* didn't state it as fact. I repeated what *others* were arguing, WITHOUT stating which "side" I come out on. Don't put words in my mouth. EDIT: I just noticed your edit. Thank you for not putting words in my mouth. I agree that the pirate captain subtopic is needlessly arcane and nitpicky. This all smacks of schoolyard my-dad-can-beat-up-your-dad aurochs dung. I fail to see how your beef with 4e wizards is a "more prevalent" flaw. I never said you weren't allowed to change the subject, or implied that anyone's permission is required. This thread has done it countless times. If you feel that slamming the 4e treatment of the wizard class is "more relevant" then that's your perogative. But it smacks of the same kind of edition warring that the pro-3.x crowd is accusing the fighter-bashers of. Feel free to think it unfair all you like. I'm not telling you what to think. I removed the latter part of your post from my quote because it wasn't relevant to my point, and seemed like a disingenuous afterthought attempt to make it seem like you weren't "picking on" an edition. That was my interpretation anyway. If that wasn't your intent, I guess I misread you. Though I do disagree with your analysis of 4e wizards, I have no intention of debating it because it really comes down to playstyle preferences and individual interpretation of what makes a given archetype most resemble its literary equivalent. [/QUOTE]

Verification