I know everyone has their own playstyle but RPG's in general are not played to "win" like a board game or a video game. Taking out encounters in a round or two may be "your" goal but it's not the goal of the game.I'll take a stab: since you're not that stellar at optimizng, you draw conclusions about a class based upon, well, moderately grounded theorycraft, unlike us optimizers who know how the class works because we play to win.
Sorry for party rockin'.
I know how to optimize just fine, but that is defeating the purpose more often than not.
How do you "win" this game? How do you "win" ~any~ ROLEplaying game?
I realize you're playing a ROLLplaying game, but... still. ;)You win by handling encounters in 2-3 rounds tops, something that Barbarians are quite good at - Come and Get Me is great at helping make it happen, just like the original inspiration behind it (Robilar's Gambit from PHB2) was.
You don't worry about the enemies having +4 to damage against you, because they will be dead before they get to profit from that.
Who died and made you the authority on what RPGs are and aren't played for? Last I checked, general survival is something most strive for in RPGs. RPGs, D&D in particular, began as a tabletop war game. A role-playing game is in fact a game with role-playing. There is no "winning" or "losing" in the sense that the game doesn't end unless your PC dies, and even then, you can get extra lives thanks to things like raise dead; but most people consider it a loss if your PCs are defeated, killed, or otherwise overcome.
RPGs are not story time around a campfire, it's a game with dice, numbers, victories, defeats. It is most definitely a game. It is a game that video games are made after (much like Monopoly :P), it's just a deeper and more complex game than most, and in my opinion very rewarding in that it appeals to multiple levels of your mind at once.
However, I don't go around and say what the goal of the game is like I'm some sort of authority on it. The goal is what you make of it. If your goal is to kill your enemies as fast as possible to contribute to the overall success of your party, then that is just as valid as doing anything else.
|
I know everyone has their own playstyle but RPG's in general are not played to "win" like a board game or a video game. Taking out encounters in a round or two may be "your" goal but it's not the goal of the game.I'll take a stab: since you're not that stellar at optimizng, you draw conclusions about a class based upon, well, moderately grounded theorycraft, unlike us optimizers who know how the class works because we play to win.
Sorry for party rockin'.
I know how to optimize just fine, but that is defeating the purpose more often than not.
How do you "win" this game? How do you "win" ~any~ ROLEplaying game?
I realize you're playing a ROLLplaying game, but... still. ;)You win by handling encounters in 2-3 rounds tops, something that Barbarians are quite good at - Come and Get Me is great at helping make it happen, just like the original inspiration behind it (Robilar's Gambit from PHB2) was.
You don't worry about the enemies having +4 to damage against you, because they will be dead before they get to profit from that.
Who died and made you the authority on what RPGs are and aren't played for? Last I checked, general survival is something most strive for in RPGs. RPGs, D&D in particular, began as a tabletop war game. A role-playing game is in fact a game with role-playing. There is no "winning" or "losing" in the sense that the game doesn't end unless your PC dies, and even then, you can get extra lives thanks to things like raise dead; but most people consider it a loss if your PCs are defeated, killed, or otherwise overcome.
RPGs are not story time around a campfire, it's a game with dice, numbers, victories, defeats. It is most definitely a game. It is a game that video games are made after (much like Monopoly :P), it's just a deeper and more complex game than most, and in my opinion very rewarding in that it appeals to multiple levels of your mind at...
I hate to burst your bubble but now is now and then was then. RPG's aren't what they started out as. If they were nothing but number games then they would all be board games. There is no "right" way to play Pathfinder or any RPG for that matter but if you look at the way the rules are written then you can get an idea of what the game was meant to be. 4th edition D&D is a numbers game with role playing hanging on for dear life. Pathfinder is not that way, it is a combination of numbers, storytelling, and a mixture of other things.
Question: From what I read you seem like you haven't been playing RPG's for very long. How much experience do you have?
|
...I know everyone has their own playstyle but RPG's in general are not played to "win" like a board game or a video game. Taking out encounters in a round or two may be "your" goal but it's not the goal of the game.I'll take a stab: since you're not that stellar at optimizng, you draw conclusions about a class based upon, well, moderately grounded theorycraft, unlike us optimizers who know how the class works because we play to win.
Sorry for party rockin'.
I know how to optimize just fine, but that is defeating the purpose more often than not.
How do you "win" this game? How do you "win" ~any~ ROLEplaying game?
I realize you're playing a ROLLplaying game, but... still. ;)You win by handling encounters in 2-3 rounds tops, something that Barbarians are quite good at - Come and Get Me is great at helping make it happen, just like the original inspiration behind it (Robilar's Gambit from PHB2) was.
You don't worry about the enemies having +4 to damage against you, because they will be dead before they get to profit from that.
Who died and made you the authority on what RPGs are and aren't played for? Last I checked, general survival is something most strive for in RPGs. RPGs, D&D in particular, began as a tabletop war game. A role-playing game is in fact a game with role-playing. There is no "winning" or "losing" in the sense that the game doesn't end unless your PC dies, and even then, you can get extra lives thanks to things like raise dead; but most people consider it a loss if your PCs are defeated, killed, or otherwise overcome.
RPGs are not story time around a campfire, it's a game with dice, numbers, victories, defeats. It is most definitely a game. It is a game that video games are made after (much like Monopoly :P), it's just a deeper and more complex game than most, and in my opinion very rewarding in that it appeals to multiple levels of
Oh yeah, whoever has played the longest is by definition correct. Let's ignore the fact that you very frequently misread, misinterpret, or are just plain wrong about things; if you've played for 30+ years we'll forget about all that.
...I know everyone has their own playstyle but RPG's in general are not played to "win" like a board game or a video game. Taking out encounters in a round or two may be "your" goal but it's not the goal of the game.I'll take a stab: since you're not that stellar at optimizng, you draw conclusions about a class based upon, well, moderately grounded theorycraft, unlike us optimizers who know how the class works because we play to win.
Sorry for party rockin'.
I know how to optimize just fine, but that is defeating the purpose more often than not.
How do you "win" this game? How do you "win" ~any~ ROLEplaying game?
I realize you're playing a ROLLplaying game, but... still. ;)You win by handling encounters in 2-3 rounds tops, something that Barbarians are quite good at - Come and Get Me is great at helping make it happen, just like the original inspiration behind it (Robilar's Gambit from PHB2) was.
You don't worry about the enemies having +4 to damage against you, because they will be dead before they get to profit from that.
Who died and made you the authority on what RPGs are and aren't played for? Last I checked, general survival is something most strive for in RPGs. RPGs, D&D in particular, began as a tabletop war game. A role-playing game is in fact a game with role-playing. There is no "winning" or "losing" in the sense that the game doesn't end unless your PC dies, and even then, you can get extra lives thanks to things like raise dead; but most people consider it a loss if your PCs are defeated, killed, or otherwise overcome.
RPGs are not story time around a campfire, it's a game with dice, numbers, victories, defeats. It is most definitely a game. It is a game that video games are made after (much like Monopoly :P), it's just a deeper and more complex game than most, and in my opinion very rewarding in that it appeals to multiple levels of
I tried my first RPG at 7 (Rifts, and I was admittedly quite lost). Was playing Deadlands at 9. Started D&D at 13 when 3E was released (tried 2E a bit later under a horrible GM which almost made me hate it, if not for BG I & II on the PC). I am now 25. So let's say 18 years of RPGs, if you don't count playing with action figures and LEGO knights and dragons to be RPGs.
And yeah, like I said, I don't find you to be the authority on what RPGs mean. Nothing you've said seems to suggest it either.
It's so insulting when someone comes along and thinks they're more right and better because they've been at whatever longer. D&D (and therefore PF) evolved from a war game it's kind of obvious when you look at the rules and where they focus most.
Shallowsoul is right and wrong. You don't win the game, but you certainly win encounters, because otherwise your character is dead.
As far as barbarian rage goes, it's a very good and useful ability, but it can be very lethal if used without thinking.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rage, just like ANY OTHER class ability, is not 100% "I win". I can't believe that, after reading through all 100+ of these posts, that some people are STILL asking the community to "sell me on rage".
You want us to explain to you how the CON bonus from Rage is heroic? What kind of BS is that? Why don't you explain to me how getting -1 to ACP from fighters' Armor Training is heroic? Or how the +1 morale bonus to saves against charm effects from Inspire Courage is heroic? Ridiculous. This thread has gotten to a point beyond reasonable discussion. But a few final points:
* If you don't like the risk of dying outright from going unconscious during a Rage, then use one of the many counter-tactics presented in this thread. If you don't want to do that, then simply don't play Barbarian. Like it or lump it, this is the INTENDED mechanic for Rage in Pathfinder.
* Rage is an awesome, powerful class feature if used wisely. It has its flaws (as INTENDED), but no class feature in Pathfinder is perfect and all of them have flaws. Also just like the flaws of other class features, the ones related to Rage can be managed. To say "flaws shouldn't have to be managed" is like saying "Rage shouldn't have any drawbacks", or "I don't agree with Rage's mechanics". In that case, you should either avoid it altogether or make a house rule. Simple. Paizo is not at fault because you "don't like" their class mechanic.
* The image of a bellowing madman charging and power attacking everything in sight, even while getting shot and stabbed in the process, is the epitome of a heroic fantasy barbarian. What more do you want us to say? Stop nitpicking when it comes to flavor and roleplay. Class flavor and class rules/mechanics are not one in the same. Arguing that rage management and a CON bonus go against the flavor of the class is retarded.
|
|
...I know everyone has their own playstyle but RPG's in general are not played to "win" like a board game or a video game. Taking out encounters in a round or two may be "your" goal but it's not the goal of the game.I'll take a stab: since you're not that stellar at optimizng, you draw conclusions about a class based upon, well, moderately grounded theorycraft, unlike us optimizers who know how the class works because we play to win.
Sorry for party rockin'.
I know how to optimize just fine, but that is defeating the purpose more often than not.
How do you "win" this game? How do you "win" ~any~ ROLEplaying game?
I realize you're playing a ROLLplaying game, but... still. ;)You win by handling encounters in 2-3 rounds tops, something that Barbarians are quite good at - Come and Get Me is great at helping make it happen, just like the original inspiration behind it (Robilar's Gambit from PHB2) was.
You don't worry about the enemies having +4 to damage against you, because they will be dead before they get to profit from that.
Who died and made you the authority on what RPGs are and aren't played for? Last I checked, general survival is something most strive for in RPGs. RPGs, D&D in particular, began as a tabletop war game. A role-playing game is in fact a game with role-playing. There is no "winning" or "losing" in the sense that the game doesn't end unless your PC dies, and even then, you can get extra lives thanks to things like raise dead; but most people consider it a loss if your PCs are defeated, killed, or otherwise overcome.
RPGs are not story time around a campfire, it's a game with dice, numbers, victories, defeats. It is most definitely a game. It is a game that video games are made after (much like Monopoly :P), it's just a deeper and more complex game than most, and in my opinion very rewarding in that it appeals
I've been playing RPG's for over 27 years. I started with D&D at 6 years old and I've played RIFTS, oWoD, Shadowrun, All versions of D&D, The Dresden Files, Midgard, Talislanta, Supernatural, Buffy and Angel, MERP, GERPS and many others. All RPG's vary from group to group and person to person, it's always been that way. What makes an RPG different from a board game is the element of story and a social interaction with a DM's world and everything that comes with it.
You just don't sound like you have been gaming for 18 years.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been playing RPGs since before they were invented.
*looks down his nose at everyone*
|
|
It's so insulting when someone comes along and thinks they're more right and better because they've been at whatever longer. D&D (and therefore PF) evolved from a war game it's kind of obvious when you look at the rules and where they focus most.
Shallowsoul is right and wrong. You don't win the game, but you certainly win encounters, because otherwise your character is dead.
As far as barbarian rage goes, it's a very good and useful ability, but it can be very lethal if used without thinking.
Actually you don't always win encounters. Some encounters you have to run from but that's all about what makes the story what it is. Nobody denies that D&D has it's origins from wargames but that's irrelevant.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You just don't sound like you have been gaming for 18 years.
Honestly, after reading your posts, I thought you had just started. I've got friends in my group that have been playing 5 years or less that have displayed more comprehension of the game. I never asked how long you've played though, because knowledge is relative to the effort put forth and the experiences you've had. It's like elves and humans like that, I suppose.
The Fighter you posted in your thread about "why the fighter hate?" didn't help at all, since my 13 year old brother has been making more effective characters for a long time. That includes the kobold-sorcerer that he kept viable and rocking right through 25th level.
I guess each day is full of surprises. Just reminds me why I put less stock in age and more stock in wisdom.
|
|
You just don't sound like you have been gaming for 18 years.Honestly, after reading your posts, I thought you had just started. I've got friends in my group that have been playing 5 years or less that have displayed more comprehension of the game. I never asked how long you've played though, because knowledge is relative to the effort put forth and the experiences you've had. It's like elves and humans like that, I suppose.
The Fighter you posted in your thread about "why the fighter hate?" didn't help at all, since my 13 year old brother has been making more effective characters for a long time. That includes the kobold-sorcerer that he kept viable and rocking right through 25th level.
I guess each day is full of surprises. Just reminds me why I put less stock in age and more stock in wisdom.
Sure you did.
LOL!! I'm sure your 13 year old brother did. This is the internet so we all have the young brother who is a RPG prodigy. I posted my fighter to show that a fighter could have a really high AC which you kept discrediting. Also, this coming from someone who moves the goalposts on a continuous basis as each of your claims about the fighter was debunked by several people. You are the one who also ignores FAQ answers that came from Sean Reynolds.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
BARBARIAN AM SEEING THREAD. AT FIRST BARBARIAN SENSE TRAP, BUT AM NOT SEEING ANY UNVISIBLE MIND BLANK CASTYS WITH NO PARTY CHANGING LIGHTBULB. BARBARIAN ASSUME AM HONEST THREAD.
BARBARIAN ONLY HAVE FEW POINTS NEED MAKING.
POINT 1. IF BARBARIAN AM DYING FROM GOING TO -1 HP, AM CRAPPY BARBARIAN. RAGING VITALITY AM ABLE TO LET ASPIRING NON-CRAPPY BARBARIAN NOT DIE. URBAN BARBARIAN REMOVE ENTIRE PROBLEM IN FIRST PLACE AND STACK WITH INVULNERABLE RAGER.
POINT 2. BARBARIAN HONESTLY ONLY EVER RUN OUT OF RAGE ROUNDS LIKE, ONE TIME. THAT AM ONLY BECAUSE BARBARIAN VERSUS ENTIRE ARMY. BARBARIAN HAVE INFINITY RAGE ROUNDS NOW DUE TO HALF ORC ANCESTOR ON MOM SIDE OF FAMILY, AM NO LONGER ISSUE.
POINT 3. NOT PLAY GAME FOR WINNER. AM NO WINNERS IN PATHFINDER. EXCEPT BARBARIAN. BARBARIAN AM ALWAYS WINNER.
THAT AM ALL.
Senior Software Developer
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd rather not remove a bunch of posts from this thread because I am too busy breaking other parts of the site, so instead I'm going to request that everybody stop exchanging insults and casting aspersions on each other's gamer cred, or I'll pull over and turn this thread right around and there will be no barbarian Disneyland for anybody.
I'd rather not remove a bunch of posts from this thread because I am too busy breaking other parts of the site, so instead I'm going to request that everybody stop exchanging insults and casting aspersions on each other's gamer cred, or I'll pull over and turn this thread right around and there will be no barbarian Disneyland for anybody.
On a TOTALLY unrelated topic, do we have an ignore function?
if so can someone PLEASE tell me how it works.
You can hide threads by clicking the circle-with-a-slash widget to the right of the thread from any forum page. We do not have an "ignore user" feature, see the website feedback forum for many threads on that specific topic.
Thank you for the anwser.
Sure you did.LOL!! I'm sure your 13 year old brother did. This is the internet so we all have the young brother who is a RPG prodigy.
Of all the stories I've told of my younger brother, this is the first time on the Paizo boards I've ever had anyone question his existence. It's a bit astounding that we have children in the world who are gifted with musical instruments, winning gaming tournaments abroad, and reading before kindergarden, but the idea that an 11 year old who started playing D&D at the age of 4 couldn't possibly have played an effective kobold sorcerer. >.>
I posted my fighter to show that a fighter could have a really high AC which you kept discrediting. Also, this coming from someone who moves the goalposts on a continuous basis as each of your claims about the fighter was debunked by several people. You are the one who also ignores FAQ answers that came from Sean Reynolds.
That's odd, since I've noted repeatedly that hit/dmg/AC are the trinity of what the Fighter excels at. In fact, I noted it could reach 3 points higher than a Ranger or Barbarian at 20th level could, since they can only get +5 celestial armor, and the Fighter could reach +5 mithral full plate (both having a +8 Dex allowance, but the Fighter getting 3 more points of armor out of it). The Fighter you posted was really, really sad. His AC wasn't even really crazy, you had gimped him using a tower shield, his combat capabilities were tragic, and his defenses (outside of flat-footed AC) were crap.
Also, I ignore FAQ answers whenever they contradict the rules as written. Doesn't matter who makes them. I don't care if it's Sean K. Reynolds or Santa Clause. The FAQ is meant to clarify or confirm rules, not revise them. That's what errata is for. You wanna change the rules, then change it in the errata. Wanna clarify or confirm a rule, then do it in the FAQ. How hard is that to understand?
Anyyywaaayyy...
A barbarian's rage provides options that normally you just don't have. There are several ways to completely remove the "risk" that everyone is going on about, but it seems that the nay-says don't want to do things like pickup diehard, select a rage power, be an orc, or whatever, to effectively ignore their number one complaint about Raging, which isn't even a valid complaint because it actually makes it easier to evade death than not.
Let me just point out that I wasn't trying to argue that Barbarian's rage makes them easier to kill, just that there are times when a Barbarian is more likely to be targeted until they are dead in comparison to their companions.
I actually like the barbarian, and find them less intensive on the thought process than building a fighter.
Removed a post and replies to it. Please refer to our messageboard rules.
Let me just point out that I wasn't trying to argue that Barbarian's rage makes them easier to kill, just that there are times when a Barbarian is more likely to be targeted until they are dead in comparison to their companions.
I actually like the barbarian, and find them less intensive on the thought process than building a fighter.
Aye, it paints a big shining red target on the barbarian. That is a GOOD thing. It keeps the enemy from giving a Coup de Grace on the Fighter who is at -5 and from focusing too much on the casties, who would become a fine red paste if they were hitby a guy that can take down fighters and barbarians.
Anything that can kill a barbarian woud have taken down a fighter and started killing the squishies one round sooner. That extra round the barbarian can stay standing is one extra round that the others have to act, and that the fighter is not able to buy for them.
Let me just point out that I wasn't trying to argue that Barbarian's rage makes them easier to kill, just that there are times when a Barbarian is more likely to be targeted until they are dead in comparison to their companions.
I actually like the barbarian, and find them less intensive on the thought process than building a fighter.
Aye, it paints a big shining red target on the barbarian. That is a GOOD thing. It keeps the enemy from giving a Coup de Grace on the Fighter who is at -5 and from focusing too much on the casties, who would become a fine red paste if they were hitby a guy that can take down fighters and barbarians.
Anything that can kill a barbarian woud have taken down a fighter and started killing the squishies one round sooner. That extra round the barbarian can stay standing is one extra round that the others have to act, and that the fighter is not able to buy for them.
Exactly! The only way the Fighter might have protected anyone any longer would be for the single action it took to turn him into a smear on the floor while he was in the negatives. The barbarian has at least 1 more round to kill his target, get healed, let the mage disable his foe, withdraw, activate a rage power to heal himself, use a magic item to dimension door to safety, etc. If he has something like Diehard or Ferocity, he might even be able to eat yet another round of punishment on top of that. :P
My point is that it increases the danger zone for a character to die outright. A raging barbarian will will automatically lose an ADDITIONAL 2x lvl HP when dropped unconscious, while a fighter will simply suffer the damage as normal. My suggestion is to simply remove the Con bonus from the rage mechanic because it doesn't work as is.
I'm in agreement with you - remove the Con bonus and give the character temporary hit points instead.
I have worked over the rage limit issue ever since 3.0 came out. Unless you have a group of 10-20 players and a really really pathetic GM, you are going to have 5-10 fights (1-3 being tough ones) between times of rest. And. The battles will usually last 10-30 rounds. Unless than your GM isnt keeping things RP and are making thing very video gamey
A normal game of Pathfinder has a group of around 4 PCs, having around 4 fights per rest, with battles lasting around 3-4 rounds. The game design, and the published adventures are built around this. I don't know why you feel the need to call 95% of GM's "really really pathetic".
And fighting a hundred rounds of combat a day sounds more videogamey than the having a few quick battles and some non-violent encounters in a day.
And they say the forums have gotten more toxic these days...
|
Currently a level 8 Invulnerable Rager Barbarian
Kept the fear of going to negatives to a minimum by taking this ability.
I focused more in survive than deal damage (he can do that without a lot of feats or rage powers)
Campaign: Reign of Winter
Rage Powers
Reckless Abandon (Ex) trade AC bonus for hit bonus (Ranks with Power Attack)
Renewed Vigor (EX) heals 1d8 per 4 levels plus Con-Bonus 1/dy, per Rage.
(Currently can heal 2d8+12 to myself)
Energy Resist (EX) Gain 1/2 level as Cold Resistance while Raging
Greater Energy Resist (EX) 1/rage half any cold damage before resistances
Feats
Weapon Focus [Great Axe], Power Attack, Endurance, Diehard, and Fast Healer
Each time I heal I get a bonus of half-con bonus added to each one. Great when there's a cleric or bard casting cure spells or channeling of positive.
with a CON score of 22 I heal and extra 3 while not raging. extra 4 while Hulk Raging (str score is also 22)
I was reading these forums back in 2012, but I missed this thread when it came out. Gorbacz, Ashiel, and StreamOfTheSky were frequent posters in those days. They were usually a lark, but they are not at their best in this discussion.
I have worked over the rage limit issue ever since 3.0 came out. Unless you have a group of 10-20 players and a really really pathetic GM, you are going to have 5-10 fights (1-3 being tough ones) between times of rest. And. The battles will usually last 10-30 rounds. Unless than your GM isnt keeping things RP and are making thing very video gamey
Especially in a dungeon crawl, You will not often have convenient times to rest. This is what makes the longevity of fighters so important. And giving barbarians more rage helps. I typically give double rage/day and double rage rounds per rage in 3.x. And I and still figuring out if I should triple rage rounds for PF or quadruple rage rounds. But I havnt decided on what works better
It depends on the party's dungeon assault style. A dungeon crawl big enough for 10 encounters usually has the dungeon divided into factions. For example, the Runeforge in Sins of the Saviors has seven clearly defined factions. Take over the stronghold of one faction, lock the gate, and the party can safely rest for the night to restore hit points, rounds of rage, and spells. A few single-faction dungeons do have 10 encounters, for example Fort Rannick in Hook Mountain Massacre is that big, but most of those allow the party to retreat outside, set up a hidden campsite, and sleep for the night.
The parties in my campaigns avoid the rest-for-the-night strategy, because when I am the GM, a faction with good leadership will notice the attacks on the other factions and will prepare for the adventurers, if given time. My players prefer 10 encounters without rest because it surprises each faction. They rest only if they took too much damage to continue. They did rest for the night against Fort Rannick.
I have a NPC bloodrager in my Iron Gods campaign. At 11th level, the party took out the 14-room 11-battle hive complex dungeon crawl in Valley of the Brain Collectors in one grueling non-stop run. That party has a mobile skirmishing style of combat, good for minimizing hit-point damage in the cleric-less party, so a battle takes 4 rounds. Thus, the bloodrager was fatigued for 8 rounds after combat and often had to begin the next combat while still fatigued. Because this happened before, I expected it and had used her feats to give her combat options that did not rely on rage. This also meant that she did not rage in every encounter, so she did not run out of rounds of rage.
It somewhat entertains me that with Pathfinder Unchained, the fix that some people suggested and some people thought was entirely unnecessary (temporary hitpoints rather than increased CON) became the norm at most tables.
It somewhat entertains me that with Pathfinder Unchained, the fix that some people suggested and some people thought was entirely unnecessary (temporary hitpoints rather than increased CON) became the norm at most tables.
So far as it goes, my impression was that the Unchained Barbarian was widely regarded as an unnecessary nerf, and the regular barbarian remained by far the more popular version--but then, I'm certainly not in any position to back up such a claim with hard data.
The most recent post before yesterday was from February 2012.point being? threads get nercoed every day this is no different
I can see why it annoys some people, and sometimes it annoys me too. For instance, the necromancer themself in this case seemed to jump right into a discussion that had been dead for years. Not much point there, amiright? So it's basically spam, since it doesn't add much ... and if the [i]topic[i] is important, I'd really prefer it if you made a new thread and gave us a concise summary of the old one, because I don't want to read through pages of old posts.
In this case, it's the person's first ever post on the forum, so I'll readily forgive some breach of etiquette.