Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dausuul" data-source="post: 6180168" data-attributes="member: 58197">I could just as easily say that you're clinging, transparently and daftly, to the insistence that BD&amp;D doesn't count.Let's recall where all this started, which was the argument that if sorceror and wizard and psion and warlock are going to be a single class, there is no sane reason to keep fighter and barbarian and paladin and ranger separate, or cleric and druid, or bard and rogue. So far, the only counterargument anyone has yet mounted is &quot;Fighter/barbarian/paladin/ranger/cleric/druid/rogue/bard have always been separate classes.&quot; This is a pretty weak reed to start with. Sorceror, psion(icist), and warlock have been separate classes as long as they've existed, and each has at least two editions' worth of tradition backing it up at this point. So you're reduced to arguing that the other classes have a better claim because they've been separate classes in every edition. But that's not true either. So now it's that 3-4 editions is enough but 2-3 isn't?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dausuul, post: 6180168, member: 58197"] I could just as easily say that you're clinging, transparently and daftly, to the insistence that BD&D doesn't count. Let's recall where all this started, which was the argument that if sorceror and wizard and psion and warlock are going to be a single class, there is no sane reason to keep fighter and barbarian and paladin and ranger separate, or cleric and druid, or bard and rogue. So far, the only counterargument anyone has yet mounted is "Fighter/barbarian/paladin/ranger/cleric/druid/rogue/bard have always been separate classes." This is a pretty weak reed to start with. Sorceror, psion(icist), and warlock have been separate classes as long as they've existed, and each has at least two editions' worth of tradition backing it up at this point. So you're reduced to arguing that the other classes have a better claim because they've been separate classes in every edition. But that's not true either. So now it's that 3-4 editions is enough but 2-3 isn't? [/QUOTE]

Verification