Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dr. Strangemonkey" data-source="post: 2114399" data-attributes="member: 6533">I guess my problem with this argument is that I think the 'comic-book superhero crossover issue' style is the one that is uniquely appropriate to DnD.  Fusangite and I have run at logger-heads before over this and I suspect we will again, repeatedly.  And I can't say that on some level I don't love him for it.  As wrong as I may find the idea of the necessity of coherent ideological backing the discrete results of that premise are well informed and very interesting.  He studies religion professionally, I study rhetoric, he has to sell philosophy for a living, and I, professionally, can never buy it - though I will admire it and steal if it if its just lying there.The Monk and Paladin certainly do represent some sort of, ahem, false problem and some form of increased conceptual flexibility would solve it.  I don't think you can get rid of them as they both represent the only DnD representation of some extremely powerful fantasy archetypes, but I do think that it wouldn't be any skin off of anyone's neck for people to have a number of options.  True of the bard as well.The Druid escapes simply based on how insanely flexible and weird the class is in the first place.  As might the cleric. The Barbarian gets saved because its so freakin simple in both mechanics and flavor that its safe, based exclusively off of dark age Vikings? Please.  Probably true of the Rogue as well. On a side note, I think the fighter gets way way way too much credit for being a generic hero builder.  Feats are nice, but the class is still too specific to really represent the claims that people throw out there for it.  It's not a bad class, but I see just as many problems building Hercules and Beowulf out of the fighter class as I do with the Monk.Please note, as well, that my defense of the Monk as appropriate to DnD should not be interpreted as a whole hearted approbation.  As a class it certainly has quirks above and beyond how well it 'fits.'On a very very side note, wouldn't it be true that any discrete organization that includes a member of the higher classes, or more than one in a fortunate society, is already overrepresenting the upper classes and underrepresenting the under classes?  Just asking cause, you know, when you make up, largely by definition, somewhere around 1% of the population you tend to skew things wherever you go.  I mean I get a group of 10 guys together and one of them once was the apprentice house servant to the fourth son of the local count and suddenly my other nine guys are underrepresented?</blockquote>

Verification