Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 5967824" data-attributes="member: 6668292">Please stop saying things like &quot;don't go there&quot; or &quot;don't kid yourself.&quot; Let's discuss things, not have you tell me what not to do this discussion.If you want to continue to talk about class roles, talk it over with someone else. I'm not engaging in it right now. This isn't the thread for it.Again, let's discuss things. You're not, currently. What are you driving at that I haven't replied to?Right now, the ogre in the 3.5 MM is good (in combat) at hitting things. Labeling him as &quot;good at hitting things&quot; isn't bad. If I wanted an ogre with new abilities, I'd need to make a new one in 3.5; if I did, labeling him as &quot;good at using ranged weapons&quot; wouldn't be a negative if that's what he's good at.I'm missing how this is somehow unacceptable. It's purely descriptive. Saying &quot;he is good at this&quot; applies to every edition. Should it be prescriptive? No. I do think it was used that way to large extent in 4e, and it shouldn't be, in my opinion. Does it need to be prescriptive? No. It can be just descriptive.So, use it that way. Include it for people that like it. As always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="JamesonCourage, post: 5967824, member: 6668292"] Please stop saying things like "[U]don't[/U] go there" or "[U]don't[/U] kid yourself." Let's discuss things, not have you tell me what not to do this discussion. If you want to continue to talk about class roles, talk it over with someone else. I'm not engaging in it right now. This isn't the thread for it. Again, let's [I]discuss[/I] things. You're not, currently. What are you driving at that I haven't replied to? Right now, the ogre in the 3.5 MM is good (in combat) at hitting things. Labeling him as "good at hitting things" isn't bad. If I wanted an ogre with new abilities, I'd need to make a new one in 3.5; if I did, labeling him as "good at using ranged weapons" wouldn't be a negative if that's what he's good at. I'm missing how this is somehow unacceptable. It's purely descriptive. Saying "he is good at [I]this[/I]" applies to every edition. Should it be prescriptive? No. I do think it was used that way to large extent in 4e, and it shouldn't be, in my opinion. Does it need to be prescriptive? No. It can be just descriptive. So, use it that way. Include it for people that like it. As always, play what you like :) [/QUOTE]

Verification