And that, aside from being just plain rude when you are feeling the need to debate, is insulting and disrespectful.
This to me comes out of left field, did I miss some horrible personal insult, what part of my post struck you as rude?
The fact that is seemed that you were reading an argument from soemplace else and attributing it to me -- such as the Sorcerer argument.
Let's take it from the top. I said:
You claim that the barbarian could be done as a fighter with certain feat choices.
This is in response to your claim that:
If I made the fighter class and defined it in a way that, through some fairly interesting uses of feats, skills and multiclassing, I could simulate the Fighter, Barbarian
Now it is certainly true that I introduced the idea of disadvantages to balance these feats, but it seems something of an about face to later claim:
I have not added any additional feats.
I notice that you halt the quote for me at the Barbarian... the interesting use of feats portion was more applied to the Ranger (Track) and so on...
Look, I have no beef with you, it just seems as though you want to agrue against something I have never tried to argue for.
Which current feats do you intend to put to an "interesting use" to model the barbarian? Or perhaps you're suggesting that in your redesigned 3e there would be exactly the same number of feats. In that case which feats would you cut?
I would niether add nor cut any feats to model the sub-class. Just as the creators of 3e did not feel the need to add feats to simulate an Illusionist and a Necromancer...
As far as this is concerned:
I feel that using the model of the Wizard and the various sub-classes it represents
You seem to have planted your flag on a piece of ground that is very close to the way it already is. There seems a very fine line between Barbarian's being a sub-class of Fighters and Barbarians being a class unto themselves. A little bit of wording is all, it would seem to me.
Close, yes. There, no. The main things I would do is place them all under teh same class heading, define them as fighting types, and not allow multiclassing between them -- just like you cannot multiclass between the Illusionist and the Necromancer... there are other things I would do. But like I said, I am not entirerly certain it is even a better idea -- just the way I would have done it. Nothing more.
Finally:
Honestly, I do not mean to sound harsh here, but it is painfully obvious that you are not reading anything I have written here.
Not one word.
I think that's an exagerration. I grant that I may have extrapolated from your posts, but I think it's clear that additional feats would be required.
Yes, it was an exageration. And this does not change the fact that just because you cannot see how it might be done without adding feats, does not mean that I have somehow argued for the inclusion of additional feats. I never said that new feats would be needed. And I can still see how it could easilly be done without them.
I agree this:
And don't even try and argue that the sorcerer should just be left out because a lot of people (myself included) really like the class, and I think 3e would be poorer without it.
Was uncalled for, and a knee jerk reaction to some posts which have advocated that. I not only retract it, but I offer my apology.
No problem. Appology gladly accepted.
As far as your claim of:
Until such time as you can read what it is that you are arguing against and absorb some of the information from those words
That was uncalled for.
Yes it was. I offer my most humble appologies for that remark, and a few others from those posts.
