mrm3ntalist wrote:What does PnP mean?
I think it is called Pen and Paper, imagine that, you can play dungeons and dragons with just some sheets of paper and handful of pens, well, you still do need some dices too, but who doesn't have some random dices around somewhere?
mrm3ntalist wrote:or he could just say
We will not be adding HiPS as an available Rogue bonus feat.
wait... he already did... nevermind
Except that was not all that was said, he implied that the reason was due to 'PnP rules' that simply do not exist on the pages of source material.
chad878262 wrote:Hmmm, seems pretty clear. I updated the rogue class in the custom changes thread. Maybe if you bothered to take a look you would have an accurate understanding of the mechanics. I suppose it's easier to just say QC doesn't know what they are doing.
Thank you for updating the rogue class in the custom changes thread. It clears out how the custom feat works. Was the BGTSCC wiki updated as well?
But, unfortunately you did not quote the actual source material - but rather - some passage of homebrewed material. Dndwiki is just not a reliable source... I could go over there and edit out the passage you quoted into whatever I happen to fancy myself. Thus I would suggest you to use the actual source books or go over to
d20srd, which is basically the core source books in digital format. (You are just missing the pretty images and fluff.)
And... Well, it is unfortunately factual to say that the QC doesn't know what they are doing,
at times.

No reason to get butthurt over this, all I have to do is point towards the 'recent' Bladesigner thread and its
Evershifting Balor as an example. A creature whose stats kept changing with every single forum post that a member of the QC made. Honestly, the QC could have just looked up the stats of it, listed them down, and make their case as to why the PRC was not overpowered. There was literally no need to go through pages after pages of that
Evershifting Balor Tango.
And I guess I could mention how the QC members have their history of using dndwiki as a source... For example, a few years ago there used to be a time when it was the only place Deathgrowl and mrm3ntalist went for their 'PnP rule' quotes. Egads...

(Just quoting another old player...)
Historically speaking, and I am including the 'pre-QC' server time period here, the 'QC' has always had two major problems. One comes from the Dunning-Kruger Effect, and the other is the listen and believe mentality.
In the context of this discussion, I could bring up historical example of how people have adamantly insisted that when you use 'HiPS' in PnP - you are literally standing in someone else's shadow.
As for the listen and believe mentality, well here is something:
mrm3ntalist wrote:Anyway, there was a guy, i think montaron was his name but he kept blowing up at times... so he had to go...
Now, could someoneone explain how this is not a direct threat?
I mean, just imagine a slightly different scenario, a real journalist looking into some shady corporation: "
Anyhow, there was a guy, he kept looking into our business... so he had to go..."
Or how about a police detective looking into some crime organization: "
Anyhow, there was a guy, he kept being too nosy about these things... so he had to go..."
But anyhow, things are slowly getting better and better over here. For example time brings more experience, and these days the members of the QC tend not be DMs with trigger finger control over the ban hammer.
