Best 4 person all caster/priest group

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Originally Posted by Troxx [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Shush now DSM. Nobody wants to consider play pockets but you. You only want to consider pockets so a shaman will be added (they will need it).

Be an adult and just drop the damn pockets.

You need to be the adult and admit you made up the pocket character restriction. Adults tell the truth and admit when they are wrong.

Your logical inconsistency is shown clearly in this post, which you have yet to rebut:

https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...postcount=5531

Shutting down conversation because it hurts your argument is childish.

[Duik]

Quote by dsm

Shutting down conversation because it hurts your argument (with me) is impossible

There I fixed it for you.

[Troxx]

Nobody made up a pocket restriction OR admission except you. Nobody else thinks pockets are relevant. Only you think they should be included … and the rationale is obvious. Adults do not ignore all the other adults around them and make up their own rules. We get it. If you can’t have a pocket cleric you lose. That sucks. We get it.

I am sorry you never got help for your neurodevelopmental disability.

Do not take it out on the rest of us who are neurotypical.





Be at peace.









Deep breaths.













(Ignore everything below if you are fragile and need a safe space)











DSM … stop reading now!








No really. You lack the mental maturity or acuity to handle it…







I warned you … stop now ….







Ps: Fuck yo’ pockets and your half-wit arguments that require pocket clerics because shamans need pocket clerics but clerics do not want or need pocket shamans. Your raging pussy-bitch self is too cowardly to rebut this simple fact. You do not answer basic questions cause you’d a basic bitch of mediocre or worse intelligence. You are … literally … the worst.

Pps: thank you for existing. Without you these forums would be boring. Please, by all means, keep being stupid. Your idiocy enriches an otherwise boring and dying forum.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Thank you for admitting there is no pocket cleric restriction finally. You agree nobody made a pocket cleric restriction.

Every legal action is enabled by default in every discussion when there is no restriction against it. That is why Crede was able to mention pocket characters in the other thread. There was no explicit enabling or disabling of pocket characters in that thread.

You do not need to explicitly enable legal actions. Otherwise op would have to make a list like this:
1. Mules are enabled
2. Pulling is enabled
3. Meditating is enabled
4. Casting spells is enabled
etc.

No thread does this, and this thread is not an exception.

That admission of being wrong took a lot of effort I can tell. That's why it looks so silly. But I am glad you did it.

Moving forward, you cannot shut down discussions of pocket characters, as you agree there is no restrictions.

Thank you!

[Troxx]

Why do you always thank people for things they didn’t do or say … or things that didn’t happen.

It doesn’t make sense man

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Originally Posted by Troxx [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Why do you always thank people for things they didn’t do or say … or things that didn’t happen.

It doesn’t make sense man

The only thing that doesn't make sense is you admit you are wrong, and then say you didn't. Why is it so hard for you to say you are wrong?

You agreed nobody made a pocket character restriction. You simply tried to hide it by claiming that a thread needs to explicitly enable pocket characters.

This clearly isn't the case, as Crede mentioned a pocket cleric in a thread thay doesn't explicitly enable or disable them.

[Elizondo]

DSM needs a pocket cleric because he plays shaman so badly

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I'll make this as simple as possible.

Originally Posted by Troxx [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Adults do not ignore all the other adults around them and make up their own rules.

Agreed. That has been my point the entire time. This includes yourself. Remember that consensus by itself is not a rule.

Originally Posted by Troxx [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Nobody made up a pocket restriction

Correct. This is what I have been telling you for 80+ pages now. OP did not post a pocket character restriction. The title of the thread does not have a pocket character restriction.

Originally Posted by Troxx [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

OR admission

There is no rule on these forums stating pocket characters must be admitted into a thread before they can be discussed. The proof of this is the thread with Crede:

https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...d.php?t=418868

Originally Posted by Crede [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Level a cleric and have people log it in as needed. I have an epic cleric that’s been 54 since 2014 and he has done countless rezzes. Just a phenomenal class that everyone should have at least one of.

That thread does not have an explicit rule stating pocket characters are allowed, or not allowed. Crede posted about a pocket cleric anyway, and nobody said "pocket characters are not allowed".

If you still want to claim you haven't admitted you are wrong after you literally said there is no pocket character restriction, that just doesn't make sense.

[Keebz]

What I don't get is what DSM things the pocket cleric is even for. This group wants the cleric logged in and playing. You can't CH my pet from character select.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Originally Posted by Keebz [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What I don't get is what DSM things the pocket cleric is even for. This group wants the cleric logged in and playing. You can't CH my pet from character select.

Almost all fights this group can do can be Torpor tanked. This means you do not need to CH the pets.

The poclet Cleric is used for Chardok Royals and the occasional res when you need it.