Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="kibbitz" data-source="post: 422656" data-attributes="member: 3723">Well, this is what I think some people think. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />One associates classes with what their core purpose is before looking at the side benefits. This might be due to some carryover from AD&amp;D 2nd ED with Fighter, Thief, Priest and Wizard representing the 4 major groups Fighting, Utility, Healing/Buffing, Attack Magic/Buffing. Even if not so, perhaps people still look at classes and their ability to fulfill these roles.Not using a familiar might be perceived a lesser loss to Sorcerors and Wizards (amendment <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />) than Ambidexterity and TWF to a Ranger, because a Ranger is expected to engage in melee combat (otherwise, why have Ambidexterity and TWF as part of the core class design to begin with?). Therefore, a more notable dissatisfactory response when one is asked to ignore these perks when playing a Ranger. Furthermore, there are disadvantages to taking a familiar, which make it less of a loss for a Sorceror not to take up one. For a Ranger who doesn't take up the virtual Ambidexterity and TWF bits, it's pure loss only, no?Edit: Sorry, missed the bit on Wizards being able to have familiars as well. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="kibbitz, post: 422656, member: 3723"] Well, this is what I think some people think. :D One associates classes with what their core purpose is before looking at the side benefits. This might be due to some carryover from AD&D 2nd ED with Fighter, Thief, Priest and Wizard representing the 4 major groups Fighting, Utility, Healing/Buffing, Attack Magic/Buffing. Even if not so, perhaps people still look at classes and their ability to fulfill these roles. Not using a familiar might be perceived a lesser loss to Sorcerors and Wizards (amendment :)) than Ambidexterity and TWF to a Ranger, because a Ranger is expected to engage in melee combat (otherwise, why have Ambidexterity and TWF as part of the core class design to begin with?). Therefore, a more notable dissatisfactory response when one is asked to ignore these perks when playing a Ranger. Furthermore, there are disadvantages to taking a familiar, which make it less of a loss for a Sorceror not to take up one. For a Ranger who doesn't take up the virtual Ambidexterity and TWF bits, it's pure loss only, no? Edit: Sorry, missed the bit on Wizards being able to have familiars as well. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification