Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mephista" data-source="post: 7726295" data-attributes="member: 6786252">The dude had a holy sword, and &quot;The hands of a king are the hands of as healer.&quot;&nbsp; That's totally paladin with healing magic, sorry, I'm going to flat out disagree with you here.&nbsp; You're pretty much just revising any warrior type into Fighter, by creating unrealistic definitions of other classes and leaving Fighter without its own, and not bothering to give an explanation why anyone should be one, just assuming they are by default.&nbsp; That's BS.&nbsp; I mean, hells, your defense of Wu Xia is &quot;they use weapons!&quot;&nbsp; So can monks!&nbsp;&nbsp; Your argument is nothing more than confirmation bias.&nbsp;Aragorn is defined by his healing hands, you know.&nbsp; Supernatural abilities innate to the heirs of Numoir is actually a whole thing.&nbsp; That's actually very central to his identity.&nbsp; He also got spirits on his side, and used magical scrying orbs in a direct challenge against the Dark Lord.&nbsp; He's pretty darn magical for Middle Earth's standards.&nbsp;Hercules is renowned for his excessive strength and training in the wilderness by wrestling animals.&nbsp; Fighters in 5e are known for their weaponry training and specializations and techniques.&nbsp; Hercules has more in common with the barbarian than the fighter class.&nbsp; None of the legends of Hercules fit with how a Fighter acts.&nbsp; Trying to call Hercules a fighter is very strained.&nbsp; This argument is basically boiling down to just &quot;any warrior defaults to Fighter if it doesn't fit a narrow definition.&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; And that's something I call BS on.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mephista, post: 7726295, member: 6786252"] The dude had a holy sword, and "The hands of a king are the hands of as healer." That's totally paladin with healing magic, sorry, I'm going to flat out disagree with you here. You're pretty much just revising any warrior type into Fighter, by creating unrealistic definitions of other classes and leaving Fighter without its own, and not bothering to give an explanation why anyone should be one, just assuming they are by default. That's BS. I mean, hells, your defense of Wu Xia is "they use weapons!" So can monks! Your argument is nothing more than confirmation bias. Aragorn is defined by his healing hands, you know. Supernatural abilities innate to the heirs of Numoir is actually a whole thing. That's actually very central to his identity. He also got spirits on his side, and used magical scrying orbs in a direct challenge against the Dark Lord. He's pretty darn magical for Middle Earth's standards. Hercules is renowned for his excessive strength and training in the wilderness by wrestling animals. Fighters in 5e are known for their weaponry training and specializations and techniques. Hercules has more in common with the barbarian than the fighter class. None of the legends of Hercules fit with how a Fighter acts. Trying to call Hercules a fighter is very strained. This argument is basically boiling down to just "any warrior defaults to Fighter if it doesn't fit a narrow definition." And that's something I call BS on. [/QUOTE]

Verification