Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Empirate" data-source="post: 6094141" data-attributes="member: 78958">I wasn't referring to Stormonu's opinion in my post at all, which I see no reason to belittle - although I do disagree. However the way s/he put it was utterly strange to me, and I was trying to provoke her/him into putting it in a more consistent fashion. The argument goes as follows, if I understand correctly:1) Say we're excluding older editions of the game...[this being a 3E discussion, we are in fact excluding them, so this is a given]2) ...then the Rogue is the most powerful...[which I disagree with, but that's not what gives me a headache]3) ...but I'm not sticking to this judgement...[the modus irrealis in "if we were excluding" implies the reason for the change of opinion which class is the most powerful; post now seems to assume that we are, in fact, not excluding older editions - but we are excluding those, so what follows is hard to make sense of]4) ...so I'll pick the Ranger over the Rogue for reasons...[which I don't agree with, but again, that's beside the point]5) ...furthermore, Sorcerer and Bard players in my experience have done a terrible job tactically and "got plastered" repeatedly.[implying that's the reason the classes suck compared to Rogue - or was it Ranger?]Am I trolling when I ask another regular to rethink her/his - IMO - botched argument? Also, ease of access was nowhere adressed in the post I commented on.</blockquote>