Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sage Genesis" data-source="post: 6097968" data-attributes="member: 6706099">As always, by this logic D&amp;D should have only two or three classes.What is unique about the Paladin that isn't represented by the Cleric or the Fighter? For that matter, what is unique about the Cleric that wouldn't be represented by a multiclass Fighter/Wizard who talks about god a lot? What makes the Ranger and the Monk deserving to be classes of their own, rather than Fighter/Rogue combos with some focus on woodland skills or feats spent on unarmed combat? For some reason you object to smashing the Barbarian (ie. the &quot;angry fighter&quot;) into the Fighter because that would make it too broad, but smashing a healer into the Fighter is a-ok. That strikes me as an odd double standard.Furthermore, to actually answer some of your questions, the difference between a Warlord and a Bard is that one of them is a spellcaster and the other isn't. The Bard has never been a non-magical healer. That's not just a semantical issue, it's a statement about how the game world works. For many people, the Warlord is a favorite precisely because it takes D&amp;D's presumptions about healing into a direction that they want it to.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sage Genesis, post: 6097968, member: 6706099"] As always, by this logic D&D should have only two or three classes. What is unique about the Paladin that isn't represented by the Cleric or the Fighter? For that matter, what is unique about the Cleric that wouldn't be represented by a multiclass Fighter/Wizard who talks about god a lot? What makes the Ranger and the Monk deserving to be classes of their own, rather than Fighter/Rogue combos with some focus on woodland skills or feats spent on unarmed combat? For some reason you object to smashing the Barbarian (ie. the "angry fighter") into the Fighter because that would make it too broad, but smashing a healer into the Fighter is a-ok. That strikes me as an odd double standard. Furthermore, to actually answer some of your questions, the difference between a Warlord and a Bard is that one of them is a spellcaster and the other isn't. The Bard has never been a non-magical healer. That's not just a semantical issue, it's a [i]statement[/i] about how the game world works. For many people, the Warlord is a favorite precisely because it takes D&D's presumptions about healing into a direction that they want it to. [/QUOTE]

Verification