Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Midknightsun" data-source="post: 3947854" data-attributes="member: 46459">So, I'm not getting this. . . you wanted a warrior type that could do . . . . everything? If they had the option of the tank that could do boatloads of damage, t'would be a bit of a no-brainer, dont you think?&nbsp; The human imagination can imagine a bunch of things that don't work in a cooperative game, so at some point imagination needs to take a chill pill.&nbsp; And I don't think the magic-user example really applies.&nbsp; I'm sure a fighter could still pick up a bow and be rather useful with it in 4e, whereas the magic-user could not back in the day, hit the planet if he dropped the sword on it. Besides the fact that I can't even think of any historical archetypical warriors who could manage this complete armed omnivorization, it seems a high standard to set, IMHO.&nbsp; And if that's the case, why bother having other classes?&nbsp; We'll just call them all &quot;fighter&quot;, and call it a day.&nbsp; I'm not trying to attack you, its just that I've seen this very same reply numerous times and I have yet to understand why putting some focus into the fighter class is a bad thing.&nbsp; Complete flexibility is the realm of classless sytems, period.&nbsp; There are plenty of them, some even pretty good.&nbsp; D&amp;D has never been one of them.&nbsp; Ever.&nbsp; Maybe someday it will be, who knows.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Midknightsun, post: 3947854, member: 46459"] So, I'm not getting this. . . you wanted a warrior type that could do . . . . everything? If they had the option of the tank that could do boatloads of damage, t'would be a bit of a no-brainer, dont you think? The human imagination can imagine a bunch of things that don't work in a cooperative game, so at some point imagination needs to take a chill pill. And I don't think the magic-user example really applies. I'm sure a fighter could still pick up a bow and be rather useful with it in 4e, whereas the magic-user could not back in the day, hit the planet if he dropped the sword on it. Besides the fact that I can't even think of any historical archetypical warriors who could manage this complete armed omnivorization, it seems a high standard to set, IMHO. And if that's the case, why bother having other classes? We'll just call them all "fighter", and call it a day. I'm not trying to attack you, its just that I've seen this very same reply numerous times and I have yet to understand why putting some focus into the fighter class is a bad thing. Complete flexibility is the realm of classless sytems, period. There are plenty of them, some even pretty good. D&D has never been one of them. Ever. Maybe someday it will be, who knows. [/QUOTE]

Verification