Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Minigiant" data-source="post: 8249318" data-attributes="member: 63508">Part of your frustration is what I tried to explain. But I think I know how to now.When Gygax and Arneson designed the fighter,they didn't realize that they designed themselves into a corner since they were the first RPG designers.What do I mean?The Fighter was just PC using the basic rules to the optimal level. Every PC has STR, HP, accuracy, damage, armor, and attacks. The Fighter just had the best STR, HP, accuracy, damage, armor, and attacks.By making that fighter the general class for warrior, they forced either1) Every specialty warrior to be a Fighter Plus. If the fighter is the generic warrior, a ranger is a generic warrior + outdoorsmanship.OR2) Every specialty warrior has to lose a fighter class feature for the specialty. Later rangers lost heavy armor and feats to get outdoormanship.AD&amp;D 1e took route 1 and that's why rangers there were awesome.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Minigiant, post: 8249318, member: 63508"] Part of your frustration is what I tried to explain. But I think I know how to now. When Gygax and Arneson designed the fighter,they didn't realize that they designed themselves into a corner since they were the first RPG designers. What do I mean? The Fighter was just PC using the basic rules to the optimal level. Every PC has STR, HP, accuracy, damage, armor, and attacks. The Fighter just had the[B] best[/B] STR, HP, accuracy, damage, armor, and attacks. By making [B]that[/B] fighter the general class for warrior, they forced either 1) Every specialty warrior to be a Fighter Plus. If the fighter is the generic warrior, a ranger is a generic warrior + outdoorsmanship. OR 2) Every specialty warrior has to lose a fighter class feature for the specialty. Later rangers lost heavy armor and feats to get outdoormanship. AD&D 1e took route 1 and that's why rangers there were awesome. [/QUOTE]

Verification