Quote:
Originally Posted by Troxx
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Bolder and highlighted that for DSM. He seems to have stopped reading after the first sentence. DSMs case for shaman is so un-compelling and weak that that the only way viability is possible is if pockets are allowed.
Funny how shamans will need a pocket cleric but clerics do not need (or want pocket shamans).
This entire side debate is even more straightforward than the early arguments where the clerics was guaranteed a spot and we were bickering/dickering about who should be 4th
|
Troxx didn't read the first sentence, where Bcbrown agrees that no rule exists against pocket characters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcbrown
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Of course there's no rule about when pocket characters can be discussed.
|
Troxx forgets that his entire argument against pocket characters was based on an imaginary rule agsinst them.
He can discuss groups without pocket characters freely. But he cannot shut down other peoples discussions of groups with pocket characters via an imaginary rule and trolling.