Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Zweischneid" data-source="post: 3883028" data-attributes="member: 11843">a.)Why is Middle Earth any less &quot;D&amp;D-ish&quot; than Lankhmar, or Eberron, or the Forgotten Realms?Thats stupid. Generic D&amp;D covers a wide range of settings. Some, such as Middle Earth might work better without a generic wizard class, others, such as the one you seem to have in your head might work better without a generic swordsaint classs. But for the sake of adaptability, I see no argument to not include either in the core rules.b.) There is no &quot;barbarian culture&quot;. It might be the case if the class were named &quot;northern tribesman&quot; or some such, but barbarian is a degradory term applied by other people to imply some people are inferior to their own. Hence it goes well as an alternative example to swordsaint, because it is orginally a term attributed to someone from the outside based on accounts of actions they have performed or on hearsay.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Zweischneid, post: 3883028, member: 11843"] a.) Why is Middle Earth any less "D&D-ish" than Lankhmar, or Eberron, or the Forgotten Realms? Thats stupid. Generic D&D covers a wide range of settings. Some, such as Middle Earth might work better without a generic wizard class, others, such as the one you seem to have in your head might work better without a generic swordsaint classs. But for the sake of adaptability, I see no argument to not include either in the core rules. b.) There is no "barbarian culture". It might be the case if the class were named "northern tribesman" or some such, but barbarian is a degradory term applied by other people to imply some people are inferior to their own. Hence it goes well as an alternative example to swordsaint, because it is orginally a term attributed to someone from the outside based on accounts of actions they have performed or on hearsay. [/QUOTE]

Verification