NOW LIVE FOR 14 DAYS ONLY! -- Archetype Anthology: A Dozen Archetypes for D&D 5th Edition on Kickstarter! From dual-wielding tempests to planar explorers -- a softcover collection of new archetypes for your 5th Edition game!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 8083223" data-attributes="member: 7023840">That's great! I always give rebates pro rata based on how far you read, so it's a good thing you bailed early!But as an aside- this is something that I really dislike about a lot of internet conversations. Even if you had only read this post, you'd know that I had a some familiarity with OD&D and AD&D. And you happen to know, in addition to that, that I also have had 5,803 posts (number is approximate) about OD&D and pre-1983 AD&D recently, some of which have cited the Monster Manual. So ... it would seem unlikely that I haven't looked at the Monster Manual in a while. Which leads to the question ... why even frame a comment like this? Do you think someone is likely to respond in a productive manner? Is it more, or less, likely that I would read this and say, "Hey, this guy is making his comment in a totally reasonable way. I think he seems exactly like the type of person I should engage in conversation with!"At best, insulting people is likely to lead to them ignoring you; at worst, they are likely to insult you back. Now, in general, there are three types of errors. 1. A factual error that requires correction. 2. An error in explaining things correctly.3. An error in understanding things correctly.The first type of error is usually quickly rectified- "You said that thieves were one of the initial classes in Men & Magic. Didn't you mean that they were one of the first classes added in the Greyhawk supplement with the Paladin after the initial three of Fighting Man, Cleric, and Magic User?"The other two are more simple- usually, because we are writing, there is imprecision in what we write. Or, because people like to argue, they immediately leap to dispute what is being said without understanding what, exactly, was asserted. Often times, a mixture of the two.Anyway, please feel free to continue not reading what I post. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification