Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DonAdam" data-source="post: 727063" data-attributes="member: 2446">I would like to give a new name to this kind of argument (it won't stick):Rules PositivismIt's like legal positivism. Legal positivism is when people say that "it's right because it's legal."This is rules positivism. Who cares if, in terms of game mechanics, rangers have never had bonuses to archery?Our mythological and fictional examples of rangers, including the person the name was taken from (Aragorn), are much more archers than two-weapon fighters.The importance is not in rules precedent, but the precedent set by the genre that the game is trying to emulate.By this same argument that JackDaniels makes, I could claim that monks should not be part of the game. Nor assassins. Why? The precedent was that they be removed.But wait, you say, that's only the second edition precedent!That's all the two-weapon fighting thing is. A 2nd edition precedent. As a person who thinks that 2nd edition was in almost all ways a step down from 1st, I am very, very glad that this precedent is going away.Besides, you've got nothing to complain about, since it's an option. Unless you think that core classes should be that shoehorned.</blockquote>