Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="The Shadow" data-source="post: 5894047" data-attributes="member: 16760">Who's wrangling?&nbsp; We're having a fun discussion about how many classes are needed to achieve the stated goal of allowing some version of every past PH1 class.And I'm not aware anyone on this thread wants to exclude anything that's been a PH1 class in the past.&nbsp; The question is, does every such *class* need to be a *class* in 5e?&nbsp; Because if a class can be represented in some other way, it opens up many other interesting character customization options!Nobody's talking about eliminating rangers (to take one example).&nbsp; We're asking, Why should only fighters be rangers?&nbsp; We're talking about druids, rogues, wizards, and everyone else being able to be rangers too!&nbsp; And in fact, that actually helps represent past editions - where, after all, some rangers have wizard spells, and some have druid spells, while some people don't want them to have spells at all.&nbsp; Capiche?Again with the personal stuff.&nbsp; If you honestly see this thread as me and other people wanting to take your favorite character out behind the shed and shoot it, I suggest you go out and get some air.I haven't ever said a single thing about the inclusion of classes stopping me from playing 5e.&nbsp; Neither has anybody else that I can recall.&nbsp; So kindly stop putting words in our mouths.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="The Shadow, post: 5894047, member: 16760"] Who's wrangling? We're having a fun discussion about how many classes are needed to achieve the stated goal of allowing some version of every past PH1 class. And I'm not aware anyone on this thread wants to exclude anything that's been a PH1 class in the past. The question is, does every such *class* need to be a *class* in 5e? Because if a class can be represented in some other way, it opens up many other interesting character customization options! Nobody's talking about eliminating rangers (to take one example). We're asking, Why should only fighters be rangers? We're talking about druids, rogues, wizards, and everyone else being able to be rangers too! And in fact, that actually helps represent past editions - where, after all, some rangers have wizard spells, and some have druid spells, while some people don't want them to have spells at all. Capiche? Again with the personal stuff. If you honestly see this thread as me and other people wanting to take your favorite character out behind the shed and shoot it, I suggest you go out and get some air. I haven't ever said a single thing about the inclusion of classes stopping me from playing 5e. Neither has anybody else that I can recall. So kindly stop putting words in our mouths. [/QUOTE]

Verification