Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DND_Reborn" data-source="post: 8491053" data-attributes="member: 6987520">It isn't meaningless. I wanted to see what people would say and most said pretty much what I expected. I mean, before posting the OP here I've been working on these questions/concepts for years (through prior editions) and the majority of responses were not surprising to me. Some did surprise me and I'm happy to admit it! As to the questions, the point remains immaterial of whether I said barbarian and sorcerer (which FYI also was made a subclass of wizard <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> ) or fighter and wizard.And the post you responded to has me saying that &quot;I am going to now answer my own questions&quot; (the second sentence...) to give others an idea of what I was thinking, so they could compare it to what they wrote. How can we have a discussion, after learning what you think, without you then also learning what I think?And so, you expressed CON was &quot;nearly worthless&quot; when removed from hit points, I replied showing how it isn't, even without the homebrew elements we've added. That sounds like a discussion to me, and you could refute my points to continue it.If you feel otherwise, I'm sorry for that but it wasn't my intent.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DND_Reborn, post: 8491053, member: 6987520"] It isn't meaningless. I wanted to see what people would say and most said pretty much what I expected. I mean, before posting the OP here I've been working on these questions/concepts for years (through prior editions) and the majority of responses were not surprising to me. Some did surprise me and I'm happy to admit it! As to the questions, the point remains immaterial of whether I said barbarian and sorcerer (which FYI also was made a subclass of wizard ;) ) or fighter and wizard. And the post you responded to has me saying that "[I]I am going to now answer my own questions[/I]" (the second sentence...) to give others an idea of what [I]I[/I] was thinking, so they could compare it to what they wrote. How can we have a discussion, after learning what [I]you[/I] think, without you then also learning what [I]I[/I] think? And so, you expressed CON was "nearly worthless" when removed from hit points, I replied showing how it isn't, even without the homebrew elements we've added. That sounds like a discussion to me, and you could refute my points to continue it. If you feel otherwise, I'm sorry for that but it wasn't my intent. [/QUOTE]

Verification