Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 5797826" data-attributes="member: 7635">The problem is what constitutes the &quot;fantasy archetypes&quot; worth saving.The cleric, as D&amp;D defines it, is a D&amp;D only trope. Spellcasting warrior-priests don't have much of a home pre-D&amp;D, and post D&amp;D uses of the &quot;healer/priest&quot; archetype rarely used maces, wore armor, and drove back the undead with a holy symbol. However, the cleric is as old as D&amp;D itself. Ditto with gnomes, whose fluff seems to differ from one edition to the next (from small magic-using dwarves to absent-minded professors to sly practical jokers to fey renegades). Hell, warlock's probably got more fantasy archetype right to the PHB than monk or paladin has. Soon, the whole thing comes down to &quot;my taste&quot; and notion of core dissolves. I've been on this board long enough to argue the validity and inclusion of thieves, rogues, bards, barbarians, cavaliers, assassins, monks, sorcerers, paladins, druids, clerics, gnomes, halflings, half-elves, half-orcs, warlords, avengers, illusionists, dragonborn, eladrin, tieflings, goliaths, warforged, drow, changlings, psionics, rangers who dual-wield, rangers with animal companions, multi-classing, dual-classing, hybrid-classing, dwarven wizards, elven barbarians, gnomish barbarians, halfling monks, and whatever the gish class of the week is. I'm convinced if it was done to account for everyone's taste, the core would only be humans, fighters, and wizards, and someone would be bawwwing that they wanted a low-magic option. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/erm.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":erm:" title="Erm&nbsp; &nbsp; :erm:" data-shortname=":erm:" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Remathilis, post: 5797826, member: 7635"] The problem is what constitutes the "fantasy archetypes" worth saving. The cleric, as D&D defines it, is a D&D only trope. Spellcasting warrior-priests don't have much of a home pre-D&D, and post D&D uses of the "healer/priest" archetype rarely used maces, wore armor, and drove back the undead with a holy symbol. However, the cleric is as old as D&D itself. Ditto with gnomes, whose fluff seems to differ from one edition to the next (from small magic-using dwarves to absent-minded professors to sly practical jokers to fey renegades). Hell, warlock's probably got more fantasy archetype right to the PHB than monk or paladin has. Soon, the whole thing comes down to "my taste" and notion of core dissolves. I've been on this board long enough to argue the validity and inclusion of thieves, rogues, bards, barbarians, cavaliers, assassins, monks, sorcerers, paladins, druids, clerics, gnomes, halflings, half-elves, half-orcs, warlords, avengers, illusionists, dragonborn, eladrin, tieflings, goliaths, warforged, drow, changlings, psionics, rangers who dual-wield, rangers with animal companions, multi-classing, dual-classing, hybrid-classing, dwarven wizards, elven barbarians, gnomish barbarians, halfling monks, and whatever the gish class of the week is. I'm convinced if it was done to account for everyone's taste, the core would only be humans, fighters, and wizards, and someone would be bawwwing that they wanted a low-magic option. :erm: [/QUOTE]

Verification