Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Quickleaf" data-source="post: 6677835" data-attributes="member: 20323">This actually isn't really related to QW;LFs, maybe very tangentially, but that's not the main point at all.No doubt about it, people are capable of extraordinary things!However, you're making a distinction that the D&amp;D rogue is not bounded by semblance of reality in the same way as the D&amp;D fighter.Because Indiana Jones and spies.That's the distinction that I'm am disputing. I maintain they are both fundamentally &quot;non-magical/mundane&quot; classes compared to most of the magic-wielding D&amp;D classes.Why is this relevant?I posed the question: Is there something UNIQUE about Fighters that mandates their sub-class design to being strictly mechanical?To which you answered (emphasis mine):I disagree with your assertion that rogues don't/couldn't exist in the real world, and also to a lesser extent berserkers.If people accept your premise that fighters are UNIQUE, then it justifies the design decision to exclusively differentiate fighter sub-classes mechanically.If people refute your premise (i.e. that fighters are NOT UNIQUE just like rogues), then it calls into question the design decision to differentiate fighter sub-classes mechanically, whereas rogue sub-classes are differentiated both thematically and mechanically.Also, you set up a false dichotomy. The only options (according to you) are super broad fighter sub-classes or a vast multitude of fighter sub-classes to cater to every possibility. Bollocks!It's about sufficient coverage. Wizard with 8 sub-classes provides sufficient coverage for the various types of wizards. Why would you think the same couldn't be done with a fighter?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Quickleaf, post: 6677835, member: 20323"] This actually isn't really related to QW;LFs, maybe very tangentially, but that's not the main point at all. No doubt about it, people are capable of extraordinary things! However, you're making a distinction that the D&D rogue is not bounded by semblance of reality in the same way as the D&D fighter. Because Indiana Jones and spies. That's the distinction that I'm am disputing. I maintain they are both fundamentally "non-magical/mundane" classes compared to most of the magic-wielding D&D classes. Why is this relevant? I posed the question: [B]Is there something UNIQUE about Fighters that mandates their sub-class design to being strictly mechanical?[/B] To which you answered (emphasis mine): I disagree with your assertion that rogues don't/couldn't exist in the real world, and also to a lesser extent berserkers. If people accept your premise that fighters are UNIQUE, then it justifies the design decision to exclusively differentiate fighter sub-classes [B]mechanically.[/B] If people refute your premise (i.e. that fighters are NOT UNIQUE just like rogues), then it calls into question the design decision to differentiate fighter sub-classes [B]mechanically[/B], whereas rogue sub-classes are differentiated both [B]thematically[/B] and [B]mechanically.[/B] Also, you set up a false dichotomy. The only options (according to you) are super broad fighter sub-classes or a vast multitude of fighter sub-classes to cater to every possibility. Bollocks! It's about sufficient coverage. Wizard with 8 sub-classes provides sufficient coverage for the various types of wizards. Why would you think the same couldn't be done with a fighter? [/QUOTE]

Verification