Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Fanaelialae" data-source="post: 7026172" data-attributes="member: 53980">Okay what are you saying in the following quote then? Even after rereading it several times I can't seem to suss out your alternate meaning.Based on our previous discussions in this thread, I can even see why you would think that, but it's still just your opinion. As we've discussed, one of my design goals for my hybrid system is not to utterly invalidate existing potential builds. You should be able to run a hybrid Barbarian/Wizard at the same table as a multiclassing Barbarian/Wizard without one of them feeling like they made a terrible choice (they should both be in the same ballpark). Based on my (admittedly limited) test data, I nailed it. You disagreed with that design goal when we discussed it earlier, and that's your prerogative, but I haven't changed my mind with regard to it. As I understand it, you feel that it is okay to provide an option that would turn existing non-optimized options into trap options. I don't. It makes sense that you might feel that way, since from reading about your table I've gotten the impression that your players are character-creation-efficiency-experts, and therefore exceedingly unlikely to fall prey to a trap option. However, as I've mentioned, I play with a wide array of play styles, including casual players. As a result, it makes very good sense from where I'm standing to eliminate all the trap options I can and avoid introducing more.I've used the term multiple times in this thread, and this is the first time I'm hearing an objection from you. If you find a different routinely used synonym (such as powergamer) non-pejorative, let me know and I will happily use that term. I actually chose optimizer rather than powergamer because I associate the latter with occasional pejorative use, but not the former.</blockquote>

Verification