Can'tFindthePath wrote:You seem to be a very literal person.
No, just giving you room to speak for yourself, rather than risk strawmanning you. :)Quote:What I am saying is that when people say something to the effect of "the rogue is weak, classes X, Y, and Z are better at everything the rogue wants to be. I personally would never play a rogue when class A with archetype B is clearly the winner in that category", they are implying that playing a rogue is dumb.
Okay, so you're saying that if someone declares that the rogue is weak and something else is better, they're telling the player that they're stupid. Got it.Quote:Of course we can point out a classes differences, and point people at other options to attain their goals. What I see is a lot of those points married to a definite opinion on the optimal choice. That's all.
Okay, this seems self-contradictory.
First you said that claiming X was stronger/weaker than Y meant implying that the player was dumb.
Then you said that it's okay to point out the differences between X and Y.
How do those two statements work together? Are you saying that it's okay (for example) to say that the rogue has a "different" attack bonus than the bard, but not to say that it has a "lower" one?
If that's what you're saying, well, that seems pretty ridiculous. If that's not what you're saying, then I need some clarification on how to read your post differently.
I can only hope that most people see my point. It seems clear that you will not no matter how I word it. So I'll leave it there.