Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sunseeker" data-source="post: 6084233">So, wait a minute here, you're using two distinctly different sources for you lore.First you're using the real world for fighters in arguing that professional fighters(soldiers) are specific training, where more generic &quot;guys who pick up weapons and hit things&quot; fighters lack such training.&nbsp; You claim that it's immersion hampering for you to have all fighters have the same skills, when you feel that fighters should reflect the real world and those that fight as a profession that should have specific skill sets.THEN you're using what D&amp;D defines as a barbarian to argue that they are untrained, when the real-world historical concept of a barbarian was simply a term applied to pretty much any raider from the north who lacked the &quot;refinement&quot; of the Mediterranean cultures when looked at of course, from that &quot;refined&quot; perspective.&nbsp; The truth was that barbarians were often very well trained in combat and related physical skills, &quot;barbarians&quot; were often excellent survivalists who, unlike the &quot;trained&quot; and &quot;skilled&quot; soldiers from Rome had the ability to last much longer in the rugged northern European territory without aid.So which is it?&nbsp; Are we using real-world history to define classes?&nbsp; Or are we using what D&amp;D has &quot;traditionally&quot; defined as the class?Using your own quote there, D&amp;D considered fighters, all of them to be disciplined and trained.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sunseeker, post: 6084233"] So, wait a minute here, you're using two distinctly different sources for you lore. First you're using the real world for fighters in arguing that professional fighters(soldiers) are specific training, where more generic "guys who pick up weapons and hit things" fighters lack such training. You claim that it's immersion hampering for you to have all fighters have the same skills, when you feel that fighters should reflect the real world and those that fight as a profession that should have specific skill sets. THEN you're using what D&D defines as a barbarian to argue that they are untrained, when the real-world historical concept of a barbarian was simply a term applied to pretty much any raider from the north who lacked the "refinement" of the Mediterranean cultures when looked at of course, from that "refined" perspective. The truth was that barbarians were often very well trained in combat and related physical skills, "barbarians" were often excellent survivalists who, unlike the "trained" and "skilled" soldiers from Rome had the ability to last much longer in the rugged northern European territory without aid. So which is it? Are we using real-world history to define classes? Or are we using what D&D has "traditionally" defined as the class? Using your own quote there, D&D considered fighters, [B]all of them[/B] to be disciplined and trained. [/QUOTE]

Verification