Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Enforcer" data-source="post: 75979" data-attributes="member: 396">For once, you're right: the onus is on us. But we have rule-zeroed it. You didn't address my thinly veiled accusation of hypocrisy, however. You tell us to rule-zero the ranger, and yet you've started threads in the past complaining about us rule-zeroing the ranger...(You directly responded to my suggestion to Jack Daniel that he just ignore the alt.ranger threads with some picture that doesn't show up, which gives me reason to believe that Tom Cashel and Jack Daniel are one and the same, though that's just a theory.)And just because your one player is happy getting archery feats and waiting 'til 3rd to use a class ability he could have used at 1st, doesn't mean a thing. If he's happy, fine, what gets me is you telling me to be happy with the official class as well, and I'm not.As for designing variants, I didn't need to. As I've already mentioned, I believe the Woodsman class is the perfect ranger class for my D&amp;D campaign. (You'll notice how I don't tell you how it's perfect for your campaign, I'll leave you to run your successful campaign--it'd be nice if you left me to do the same.)Edit: Before my language implied that I was unhappy that Tom Cashel's player was happy, that has been remedied.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Enforcer, post: 75979, member: 396"] For once, you're right: the onus [I]is[/I] on us. But we [I]have[/I] rule-zeroed it. You didn't address my thinly veiled accusation of hypocrisy, however. You tell us to rule-zero the ranger, and yet you've started threads in the past complaining about us rule-zeroing the ranger...(You directly responded to my suggestion to Jack Daniel that he just ignore the alt.ranger threads with some picture that doesn't show up, which gives me reason to believe that Tom Cashel and Jack Daniel are one and the same, though that's just a theory.) And just because your one player is happy getting archery feats and waiting 'til 3rd to use a class ability he could have used at 1st, doesn't mean a thing. If he's happy, fine, what gets me is you telling me to be happy with the official class as well, and I'm not. As for designing variants, I didn't need to. As I've already mentioned, I believe the Woodsman class is the perfect ranger class for my D&D campaign. (You'll notice how I don't tell you how it's perfect for your campaign, I'll leave you to run your successful campaign--it'd be nice if you left me to do the same.) Edit: Before my language implied that I was unhappy that Tom Cashel's player was happy, that has been remedied. [/QUOTE]

Verification