Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Gnarl45" data-source="post: 6561441" data-attributes="member: 6787695">Post #25: Lord of the Rings Hobbit. That's the first of my posts you answered to. Tell me again, how did you misunderstand what I was saying when the post you answered to already had a literary reference?But even then, you actually told me that a ranger without spells, a generalist wizard, a leader, and a non-assassin skill monkeys are niche/specialized . They're not only common literary archetypes but most of them are also common D&amp;D archetypes. You had rangers without spells in 2e and 3e. In 4e, it was the default ranger. And the generalist wizard has been the default at least in BECMI, 2e, 3e, and 4e. That's every edition I played except 5e. In 3e, you had the marshal and in 4e, the warlord was a core class. How are leaders not common? And characters that are good at fighting and good at skills without being backstabbers exist in every fantasy world except D&amp;D.I agree with this. And that's why I said the common ones (post #21). What made you think that I wanted to have a buttload of options such as imodium or drunken master?In any event, how does a couple of generic character of options and a dozen feats/subclasses to better support the common fantasy archetypes qualify as bloat? Why is it so hard for some of you to accept that all common character concepts aren't supported in the core 5e book? It's not like any other edition did it...</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Gnarl45, post: 6561441, member: 6787695"] Post #25: Lord of the Rings Hobbit. That's the first of my posts you answered to. Tell me again, how did you misunderstand what I was saying when the post you answered to already had a literary reference? But even then, you actually told me that a ranger without spells, a generalist wizard, a leader, and a non-assassin skill monkeys are niche/specialized . They're not only common literary archetypes but most of them are also common D&D archetypes. You had rangers without spells in 2e and 3e. In 4e, it was the default ranger. And the generalist wizard has been the default at least in BECMI, 2e, 3e, and 4e. That's every edition I played except 5e. In 3e, you had the marshal and in 4e, the warlord was a core class. How are leaders not common? And characters that are good at fighting and good at skills without being backstabbers exist in every fantasy world e[U]xcept D&D.[/U] I agree with this. And that's why I said the common ones (post #21). What made you think that I wanted to have a buttload of options such as imodium or drunken master? In any event, how does a couple of generic character of options and a dozen feats/subclasses to better support the common fantasy archetypes qualify as bloat? Why is it so hard for some of you to accept that all common character concepts aren't supported in the core 5e book? It's not like any other edition did it... [/QUOTE]

Verification