Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="TheCosmicKid" data-source="post: 6678248" data-attributes="member: 6683613">I can't help but get the impression that you're more interested in proving that you're the most historically knowledgeable poster in the thread than you are in actually addressing what people are saying.&nbsp; But I'm not challenging your historical knowledge.&nbsp; And I didn't say what you think I said, either.&nbsp; I did not say that all knights were noble -- I said that the concept of knighthood connoted rank and status.&nbsp; And I did not say that all knights were leaders -- I said that if, if, there is to be a distinct &quot;knight&quot; class, then leadership is the next most prominent theme to give it, since &quot;armed combat expert&quot; is amply covered by the fighter class.Not all historical barbarians were massively muscled berserkers, either.&nbsp; But the &quot;barbarian&quot; class is, because it's a common association in the popular consciousness and also a distinctive mechanical identity the game can work with.&nbsp; If you want to make a barbarian character who doesn't rage, you don't have to use the &quot;barbarian&quot; class to do it.&nbsp; Why should the &quot;knight&quot; class function any differently?And no, I'm not going to follow a forty-three-page thread in order to have a conversation on a four-page thread.&nbsp; I'm sorry if this requires you to repeat some points you've made, but I don't think that's as unduly burdensome for you as the reverse would be unduly burdensome for me.&nbsp; And frankly, I don't see how the particular post you linked is all that relevant to this conversation, so perhaps rephrasing what you think is important about it to fit this thread's context could actually do your case some good.I have a hard time reconciling the concept of &quot;knight&quot; with a full arcane spellcasting progression and abilities like &quot;Jack of all Trades&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="TheCosmicKid, post: 6678248, member: 6683613"] I can't help but get the impression that you're more interested in proving that you're the most historically knowledgeable poster in the thread than you are in actually addressing what people are saying. But I'm not challenging your historical knowledge. And I didn't say what you think I said, either. I did not say that all knights were noble -- I said that the concept of knighthood connoted [I]rank and status[/I]. And I did not say that all knights were leaders -- I said that if, [I]if[/I], there is to be a distinct "knight" class, then leadership is the next most prominent theme to give it, since "armed combat expert" is amply covered by the fighter class. Not all historical barbarians were massively muscled berserkers, either. But the "barbarian" class is, because it's a common association in the popular consciousness and also a distinctive mechanical identity the game can work with. If you want to make a barbarian character who doesn't rage, you don't have to use the "barbarian" class to do it. Why should the "knight" class function any differently? And no, I'm not going to follow a forty-three-page thread in order to have a conversation on a four-page thread. I'm sorry if this requires you to repeat some points you've made, but I don't think that's as unduly burdensome for you as the reverse would be unduly burdensome for me. And frankly, I don't see how the particular post you linked is all that relevant to this conversation, so perhaps rephrasing what you think is important about it to fit this thread's context could actually do your case some good. I have a hard time reconciling the concept of "knight" with a full arcane spellcasting progression and abilities like "Jack of all Trades". [/QUOTE]

Verification