Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="generic" data-source="post: 7885478" data-attributes="member: 6923088">No, what we're saying is that the explicit opposition to one class over all others, on the same basis, and using the same rubric, seems like inherent bias.&nbsp; There are many who will rage against the Warlord, but insist that the Paladin, Ranger, and Sorcerer are all necessary inclusions on the basis of the same rubric which they use to deny the warlord/psion/etc.&nbsp; Full disclosure: I like having more classes, so I certainly am not arguing for the removal of the aforementioned classes.Yes, but many of these reasons completely collapse when you ask them about their favorite class/mechanic/race.&nbsp; As I stated before, I have argued with people who oppose the warlord and psion, but love paladins and rangers.&nbsp; They think not of bloat, but of what they enjoy, and that's great!&nbsp; More power to them for liking the things that they love, but that's not an argument based in logic.I have addressed the actual reasons in thread after thread.&nbsp; In my opinion, they're stupid, gatekeeping, and are utterly illogical.&nbsp; I've re-hashed this argument many, many times, and I'm tired of it.It's not that I think that there's some great conspiracy, but I find the particular bias against the warlord/psion unusual in that there are those who will endlessly support the sorcerer, ranger, and paladin, but use arguments of 'bloat' against the warlord/psion.What makes the anti-warlord crown disingenuous is when the same arguments they use against the warlord are pushed against them, and their response is to ignore it.&nbsp; Explain to me how one additional class is bloat, and how the warlord is a worse form of bloat than the sorcerer, ranger, paladin, etc.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="generic, post: 7885478, member: 6923088"] No, what we're saying is that the explicit opposition to one class over all others, on the same basis, and using the same rubric, seems like inherent bias. There are many who will rage against the Warlord, but insist that the Paladin, Ranger, and Sorcerer are all necessary inclusions on the basis of the same rubric which they use to deny the warlord/psion/etc. Full disclosure: I like having more classes, so I certainly am not arguing for the removal of the aforementioned classes. Yes, but many of these reasons completely collapse when you ask them about their favorite class/mechanic/race. As I stated before, I have argued with people who oppose the warlord and psion, but love paladins and rangers. They think not of bloat, but of what they enjoy, and that's great! More power to them for liking the things that they love, but that's not an argument based in logic. I have addressed the actual reasons in thread after thread. In my opinion, they're stupid, gatekeeping, and are utterly illogical. I've re-hashed this argument many, many times, and I'm tired of it. It's not that I think that there's some great conspiracy, but I find the particular bias against the warlord/psion unusual in that there are those who will endlessly support the sorcerer, ranger, and paladin, but use arguments of 'bloat' against the warlord/psion. What makes the anti-warlord crown disingenuous is when the same arguments they use against the warlord are pushed against them, and their response is to ignore it. Explain to me how one additional class is bloat, and how the warlord is a worse form of bloat than the sorcerer, ranger, paladin, etc. [/QUOTE]

Verification