Best 4 person all caster/priest group

[Troxx]

So your answer is that absent pocket clerics you would never drop the cleric. Good to know. Damn that took long enough.

So we really aren’t debating cleric vs shaman at all? Ok so it’s back to ench/ench/cleric/X

Glad we cleared that up.

If that wasn’t your answer, feel free to clarify what your answer actually is or admit that you are unwilling to provide an answer at all.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

So we really aren’t debating cleric vs shaman at all? Ok so it’s back to ench/ench/cleri/X

Glad we cleared that up.

This is not correct, because pocket characters are allowed in this thread. You admitted the pocket character restriction was completely subjective. Objectively it doesn't exist, and you agree.

You can swap the Cleric for another class and pocket the cleric for the occasional CH and res.

[Troxx]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I swear we could make it to 1000 pages just asking this clown to answer a very straightforward question every time he posts a non-answer

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I swear we could make it to 1000 pages just asking this clown to answer a very straightforward question every time he posts a non-answer

Troxx is talking about himself again. It took many pages of trolling and dodging just to get Troxx to admit his pocket character restriction was completely subjective.

His question about pocket characters being restricted is irrelevant to this thread.

This means all of his arguments insisting you can't have a pocket cleric are invalid, by his own admission. Please disregard them moving forward.

[Troxx]

The last 40 pages as in 120ish to page 168

God you are dense

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Troxx is back to talking to himself. I wonder how long he will go. We shall see.

At least we are in agreement that pocket characters are allowed in the discussion. It took long enough for Troxx to admit he was wrong. Many pages of trolling and dodging were required for Troxx to admit he was wrong. But I say this is progress!

This removes a point of contention, making future debates smoother. One less question for Troxx to dodge.

[Troxx]

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

At least we are in agreement that pocket characters are allowed in the discussion.

Literally nobody thinks this is or should be the case but you. Why are you claiming people are in agreement when they aren’t? Is this the same delusional tactic you take when you thank people for conceding when no concession was given?

Has this thread broken your brain?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

Literally nobody thinks this is or should be the case but you. Why are you claiming people are in agreement when they aren’t? Is this the same delusional tactic you take when you thank people for conceding when no concession was given?

Has this thread broken your brain?

Not at all. You admitted you have no objective evidence to support the pocket character restriction.

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

From the god damn title of this thread along with the first 100+ pages of the thread.

The title of the thread does not say "no pocket characters", nor does OP say it in the first 100+ pages.

This means you are subjectively interpreting the title, and have no objective evidence supporting the no pocket character restriction.

Thank you for admitting there is no actual pocket character restriction. You made it up. We are in agreement.

Moving forward, all arguments regarding a pocket character restriction are invalid.

[Duik]

Thank god.
Someone finally "won" can we kill this fucker (the thread) now?

[Toxigen]

whew lads did we have a good weekend?