Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BryonD" data-source="post: 2913026" data-attributes="member: 957">Wow, I just can't believe that nit is even worth picking.You have completely missed the point.I'm not the one getting hung up on labels.&nbsp; I can not believe you actually think refuting my &quot;claim&quot; that drow are a standard race even begins to touch on the point.Would it help if I had used the term &quot;common&quot;?&nbsp; The point of using the term standard had nothing in the world to do with core PC access.&nbsp; Adding ninja levels to a drow is no more complicated than adding ninja levels to a dwarf.&nbsp; It is a basic, and extremely simple &quot;standard&quot; thing to do.&nbsp; In that sense a drow is just as standard as a dwarf.&nbsp; As opposed to say a mind-flayer or dragon or other race with built in class levels.&nbsp; I still do not consider those to be complicated enough to merit a book on adding classes.&nbsp; But the process in that case is not standard.I'm also unclear on where the term &quot;standard&quot; actually came to mean &quot;core PC class&quot;. Your arguement&nbsp; seems to be based on ignoring the obvious contextual meaning and forcing an obtuse alternate.That said, I never remotely stated that I have any problem with templates and classes. I did say that I expect a Monster Manual to have new monsters.&nbsp; The key word is &quot;new&quot;, not &quot;monster&quot; or any overly picky disection of the word &quot;monster&quot;.&nbsp; Adding ninja levels to a drow does not make a &quot;new&quot; monster.&nbsp; Is it &quot;wrong&quot; to put standard (yes, standard) classed races in a book called &quot;Monster Manual&quot;?&nbsp; No.&nbsp; I'm not saying that.&nbsp; Does the term &quot;Monster Manual&quot; put a different expectation in my mind?&nbsp; Yes, I am saying that.But that really isn't that big a deal.&nbsp; That was just a comment.&nbsp; The real issue to me is which of these makes sense:a) Spend 5 minutes making a drow ninja of whatever level and gear I preferor b) Give WotC money for a statblock of a single drow ninja 4?I don't see why I should want to pay for something so simple and standard.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BryonD, post: 2913026, member: 957"] Wow, I just can't believe that nit is even worth picking. You have completely missed the point. I'm not the one getting hung up on labels. I can not believe you actually think refuting my "claim" that drow are a standard race even begins to touch on the point. Would it help if I had used the term "common"? The point of using the term standard had nothing in the world to do with core PC access. Adding ninja levels to a drow is no more complicated than adding ninja levels to a dwarf. It is a basic, and extremely simple "standard" thing to do. In that sense a drow is just as standard as a dwarf. As opposed to say a mind-flayer or dragon or other race with built in class levels. I still do not consider those to be complicated enough to merit a book on adding classes. But the process in that case is not standard. I'm also unclear on where the term "standard" actually came to mean "core PC class". Your arguement seems to be based on ignoring the obvious contextual meaning and forcing an obtuse alternate. That said, I never remotely stated that I have any problem with templates and classes. I did say that I expect a Monster Manual to have new monsters. The key word is "new", not "monster" or any overly picky disection of the word "monster". Adding ninja levels to a drow does not make a "new" monster. Is it "wrong" to put standard (yes, standard) classed races in a book called "Monster Manual"? No. I'm not saying that. Does the term "Monster Manual" put a different expectation in my mind? Yes, I am saying that. But that really isn't that big a deal. That was just a comment. The real issue to me is which of these makes sense: a) Spend 5 minutes making a drow ninja of whatever level and gear I prefer or b) Give WotC money for a statblock of a single drow ninja 4? I don't see why I should want to pay for something so simple and standard. [/QUOTE]

Verification