Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 8249434" data-attributes="member: 7023840">Sure. Except for the following slight issues:1. This entire thread was created because of my prior multiple threads on the history of classes and rangers.From the OP: Looking at the rangers thru the ages thread it got me thinking....2. This is a very short thread, and the fourth post in it is from me, and starts like this:Why was the 1e Ranger so good?I prefer the argument from simplicity. If you wanted a martial character, and you made the prerequisites, the Ranger was a better choice in almost all aspects than the Fighter. Because it was a &quot;subclass&quot; you generally got everything the fighter got, AND MORE!3. So the post that followed was actually just a response to someone else (minigiant) and a discussion about the fighter qua fighter, and even in that post (where I was talking about the fighter), I reiterated the basic point that the paladin and ranger got all the features.So this means that a person had to a) not know that I posted extensively on this topic before (fair!), b) not have read this very short thread and seen the context (okay ...) and c) not bothered reading the post that they were refuting (um...).Which is, unfortunately, par for the course. Normally, I get the idea of, &quot;If people misinterpret you, you need to write better,&quot; but at a certain point, people need to read better, or at least pause before typing a rebuttal ...it is possible that on the internet, someone isn't wrong.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Snarf Zagyg, post: 8249434, member: 7023840"] Sure. Except for the following slight issues: 1. This entire thread was created because of my prior multiple threads on the history of classes and rangers. From the OP: [I]Looking at the rangers thru the ages thread it got me thinking....[/I] 2. This is a very short thread, and the fourth post in it is from me, and starts like this: [I]Why was the 1e Ranger so good? I prefer the argument from simplicity. If you wanted a martial character, and you made the prerequisites, the Ranger was a better choice in almost all aspects than the Fighter. [B]Because it was a "subclass" you generally got everything the fighter got, AND MORE![/B][/I] 3. So the post that followed was actually just a response to someone else (minigiant) and a discussion about the fighter qua fighter, and even in that post (where I was talking about the fighter), I reiterated the basic point that the paladin and ranger got all the features. So this means that a person had to a) not know that I posted extensively on this topic before (fair!), b) not have read this very short thread and seen the context (okay ...) and c) not bothered reading the post that they were refuting (um...). Which is, unfortunately, par for the course. Normally, I get the idea of, "If people misinterpret you, you need to write better," but at a certain point, people need to read better, or at least pause before typing a rebuttal ...it is possible that on the internet, someone isn't wrong. [/QUOTE]

Verification