Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tovec" data-source="post: 6137681" data-attributes="member: 95493">Is your problem that the term 'barbarian' is attached the class or that 'battle ragers' should not be part of the class barbarian? It is a little unclear for me.Also.. if, and I stress IF, we are going to merge barbarian in with another class then it should be the ranger and not the fighter. The fighter represents a certain brand or style of combat, they are the tactics and equipment guys. They can be two weapon fighters, lancers, polearm wielding maniacs or whatever but they are defined by their specific shtick and their equipment. Barbarians in most media could probably be defined as rangers, or as an aspect of ranger being the 'uncivilized' warrior. Perhaps the ranger is that uncivilized part and the 'barbarian' or berzerker background is the raging aspects. Just a thought, I personally think that barbarians are and need to remain their own class; they are probably the class I've played most if not then second most of any in DnD. Fighters, paladins, and rangers make poor substitutes for the real Mccoy. Actually that is a good example..Classes as Star Trek characters. Do we really need Uhura? Can't Spock work the comms? We should roll Checkov into Scotty and only have one weapon's master-engineer. That would be silly you say, why is that? Because they do different roles and have earned being different characters? I absolutely agree. It may be a little hokey but there is no reason to completely remove Sulu and replace him with a voice interface AI to fly the ship. It is part of the feel of the show/movie and would be insane to do so, not to mention pissing a whole fanbase off who loved Sulu best.</blockquote>

Verification