Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ClaytonCross" data-source="post: 7921867" data-attributes="member: 6880599">We are entirely in agreement here. Your arguments was that &quot;The rules of the game create a shared expectation&quot; and you asserted that &quot;They're all rules. Saying some are mutable while others aren't because they're math is wrong.&quot; seemed/seems like your saying that some of your personal preferences are based on undisputable math making it sound like your saying your opinion is based on undisputable logic so is fact not openon. So this post says your completely reasonable while other posts read as though your imposing opinion on others. This is not me putting words in your mouth or intent in your language, this is people reading your posts and trying to interprets your meaning which is how all information on forums is passed.&nbsp; So you point of view in text form may just be open to interpretation you didn't intend by people (to include me) who look at things from a different prospective angle. So all everyone arguing against you and whom you are arguing against may very well be saying the same thing just between person inflection added by the reader and wording that can be interpreted two different ways... because English is that way, we are missing each other making the same points.The dispute here seems to be what &quot;in line with the PHB&quot; means. Mechanical, we all fallow the book. Fluff, tends to create a lot of in between rules like the warlock/cleric muti-class not being ok, even though there is no fluff or mechanical statement in all of the PHB that prevents it. &quot;Fluff&quot; then is always a matter of setting which uses the same PHB in every setting. So Homebrew, forgotten Realms, etc... ultimately that means ask the GM about fluff and come to some agreement, since no &quot;fluff&quot; in the PHB is universally static and is instead setting dependant.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ClaytonCross, post: 7921867, member: 6880599"] [B]We are entirely in agreement here[/B]. Your arguments was that "The rules of the game create a shared expectation" and you asserted that "They're all rules. Saying some are mutable [U]while others aren't because they're math is wrong[/U]." [B]seemed/seems[/B] like your saying that some of your personal preferences are based on undisputable math making it sound like your saying your opinion is based on undisputable logic so is fact not openon. So this post says your completely reasonable while other posts read as though your imposing opinion on others. [B]This is not me putting words in your mouth or intent in your language, this is people reading your posts and trying to interprets your meaning which is how all information on forums is passed[/B]. So you point of view[B] in text form[/B] may just be open to interpretation you didn't intend by people (to include me) who look at things from a different prospective angle. So all everyone arguing against you and whom you are arguing against may very well be saying the same thing just between person inflection added by the reader and wording that can be interpreted two different ways... because English is that way, we are missing each other making the same points. The dispute here seems to be what "in line with the PHB" means. Mechanical, we all fallow the book. Fluff, tends to create a lot of in between rules like the warlock/cleric muti-class not being ok, even though there is no fluff or mechanical statement in all of the PHB that prevents it. [B]"Fluff" then is always a matter of setting[/B] which uses the same PHB in every setting. So Homebrew, forgotten Realms, etc... ultimately that means ask the GM about fluff and come to some agreement, since no "fluff" in the PHB is universally static and is instead setting dependant. [/QUOTE]

Verification