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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 9140882" data-attributes="member: 996">Double standards are disquieting, yes.  Especially when applied to two closely-comparable things.  Like classes both appearing in a prior-edition PH1, meant to be capable of providing some similar contributions to a D&D party.   True, the Warlord and Cleric schticks do not have strictly equal time in Genre.  But, the Warlord's things are more prevalent. <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="🤷" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f937.png" title="Person shrugging    :person_shrugging:" data-shortname=":person_shrugging:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" /><img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="🤔" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f914.png" title="Thinking face    :thinking:" data-shortname=":thinking:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" /> ..ah... there might be... if you don't consider genre tropes something that justifies a class in D&D, why not respond with that, instead of "but the genre trope in question isn't continuous, moment-by-moment" ? Something like, "D&D simply doesn't model the fantasy genre, clerical healing is a staple of D&D, it's rare in genre, fireballs are rarely tossed out one after another, in genre, outside of parodies, like Monty Python and the Holy Grail." ...and, if you don't see it as a reason to include it, I suppose there's no similar reason in your estimation to exclude it...  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f914.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":unsure:" title="Unsure    :unsure:"  data-smilie="24"data-shortname=":unsure:" />But that is interesting, how do you justify classes in a Fantasy game, if not by looking for archetypes in the broader Fantasy genre? Like Clerics, well, existing, and wizards being Vancian and both being OP compared to the Fighter, but a new non-caster class being OP compared to the fighter is a bridge too far?  That kinda thing? Or is it simply as, they existed in D&D at some point in the past prior to 2008, they don't need to be questioned?LFQW then, martial/caster gap, now, c'est la D&D, <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="🤷‍♂️" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f937-2642.png" title="Man shrugging    :man_shrugging:" data-shortname=":man_shrugging:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" /> ?</blockquote>

Verification