Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 4623975" data-attributes="member: 22779">Not sure, and, quite frankly don't care.&nbsp; The fact that with a reasonable stat buy, and a core character, he's created a PC that is miles behind the rest of the party pretty much says it all.&nbsp; Imaro, my entire line of questioning throughout this entire little exercise was to question why you needed to put it forth that there are gamers out there who deny the existence of rules support in 3e.&nbsp; That was the way I read your OP and subsequent responses.&nbsp; The link you provided shows someone who knows the rules exist, but not the name of the book.&nbsp; There is a fair difference.&nbsp; Your original 5 points are most certainly covered in later 3e books.&nbsp; I won't dispute that at all.&nbsp; What surprises me is that you seem to think that there are apparently large enough numbers of gamers on these boards who are completely in the dark as to the existence of these rules.&nbsp; Your first response to my first post in this thread was:Yes, I agree that would be a misconception.&nbsp; I just had no idea that this misconception was so widespread.&nbsp; Apparently I'm not reading the right threads.Heck, I didn't even START the whole 4e tangent.&nbsp; I was just discussing things.&nbsp; I'm sorry if you thought I was being agressive in disagreeing with you.&nbsp; I didn't mean to be.&nbsp; Actually, rereading my posts, I barely even mention 4e.&nbsp; Certainly at no point was I trying to &quot;prove&quot; anything.&nbsp; Hobo asked me what innovations appear in 4e that don't in 3e.&nbsp; My answer was none.&nbsp; How is that trying to prove that 4e&gt;3e?Reread the thread.&nbsp; Only read my posts.&nbsp; I defy to you to find posts where I'm championing anything.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 4623975, member: 22779"] Not sure, and, quite frankly don't care. The fact that with a reasonable stat buy, and a core character, he's created a PC that is miles behind the rest of the party pretty much says it all. Imaro, my entire line of questioning throughout this entire little exercise was to question why you needed to put it forth that there are gamers out there who deny the existence of rules support in 3e. That was the way I read your OP and subsequent responses. The link you provided shows someone who knows the rules exist, but not the name of the book. There is a fair difference. Your original 5 points are most certainly covered in later 3e books. I won't dispute that at all. What surprises me is that you seem to think that there are apparently large enough numbers of gamers on these boards who are completely in the dark as to the existence of these rules. Your first response to my first post in this thread was: Yes, I agree that would be a misconception. I just had no idea that this misconception was so widespread. Apparently I'm not reading the right threads. Heck, I didn't even START the whole 4e tangent. I was just discussing things. I'm sorry if you thought I was being agressive in disagreeing with you. I didn't mean to be. Actually, rereading my posts, I barely even mention 4e. Certainly at no point was I trying to "prove" anything. Hobo asked me what innovations appear in 4e that don't in 3e. My answer was none. How is that trying to prove that 4e>3e? Reread the thread. Only read my posts. I defy to you to find posts where I'm championing anything. [/QUOTE]

Verification