new Beor class excluded to the hobbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HeirOfNumenor

Nowhere is the number of archers mentioned, let alone 500. If I have overlooked it, I apologize - where are you getting this number?

---

Yeah, you're right and I apologize. I was in a hurry when I wrote that post so what happened was:
- I remembered that there were hobbit archers in that aforementioned battle
- I went to Tolkien Gateway (which I usually concider as somewhat reliable source of information, when it comes to articles that have sources mentioned) instead of taking time to read the original sources (which I usually do before posting)
- Of course I chose the 1st article I came across that, I see now, is purely speculative about the strength of forces in that battle. There is also an article about the Battle of Fornost that is more loyal to the original writings, and that I should have used.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TharbadThief

Yeah, you're right and I apologize. I was in a hurry when I wrote that post so what happened was:
- I remembered that there were hobbit archers in that aforementioned battle
- I went to Tolkien Gateway (which I usually concider as somewhat reliable source of information, when it comes to articles that have sources mentioned) instead of taking time to read the original sources (which I usually do before posting)
- Of course I chose the 1st article I came across that, I see now, is purely speculative about the strength of forces in that battle. There is also an article about the Battle of Fornost that is more loyal to the original writings, and that I should have used.

---

Here's the source of the legend, from the Prologue (Concerning Hobbits) to LotR: "To the last battle at Fornost with the Witch-lord of Angmar they sent some bowmen to the aid of the king, or so they maintained, though no tales of Men record it. "

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

. /snip


And you play on Laurelin! Who the heck plays on an RP server and then makes arguments for giving hobbits even more unlikely class choices than the ones they already have?

So you can quit your griping.

---

I wasn't aware that engaging in a discussion regarding the merits of allowing a certain race to be able to play a class was "griping". When did that rule kick in?

Interestingly, one can present an argument for or against a particular concept or notion without any personal interest or involvement in experiencing the outcome themselves. For example I rarely if ever spar but I did enjoy engaging in the discussion as to why players should be able to spar in a crafting hall. Similarly I doubt I would ever be interested in playing a hobbit champion yet I can ascertain the hairs-breadth of difference between the underlying design, play style and experience of a red-specc'd guardian and a red-specc'd champion and so discuss the relative merits of having that option.

So sorry to disappoint you on that.

Just a shame you have bring into the discussion personal slants in order to make your point. Never mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fratonia

Actually no. Maybe that is what YOUR hobbit guardian does but not everyone plays his characters like you do. A guardian is a protector and the point that a guardian in red can dish out a good amount of damage is just a compromise in my opinion that was implemented to make solo questing easier.

If you have no problem with the (unnecessary) changes that make some aspects of the classes interchangeable - ok, this is your opinion. I certainly don't like these tendencies to create a class/attribute pablum. Nicely defined classes were one of the reasons why I liked this game so much. The class restrictions were/are one believable aspect of this.

---

I think you'll not find at any point was I presenting an argument for the complete removal of all class & race restrictions - just testing the water as to why a hobbit could not be a champion given the playstyle opportunity offered through being an Overpower Guardian. Regardless of the reasons why that spec was made available by the HD class revamp, that spec and playstyle are there as a perfectly valid option for playing a guardian, whether that was to make solo questing easier misses the obvious evidence available for that spec being used in both solo / group pvp as well as group pve content.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BangoTwinkletoes

I think you'll not find at any point was I presenting an argument for the complete removal of all class & race restrictions - just testing the water as to why a hobbit could not be a champion given the playstyle opportunity offered through being an Overpower Guardian. Regardless of the reasons why that spec was made available by the HD class revamp, that spec and playstyle are there as a perfectly valid option for playing a guardian, whether that was to make solo questing easier misses the obvious evidence available for that spec being used in both solo / group pvp as well as group pve content.

---

Hmm, by that definition the bard was designed to be the ultimate weapon of mass destruction because the obvious evidence is all around us, right? And I always thought that bards are healers. Boy was I wrong...

What do we need hunters and champs for again? Let's use bards instead, the most martial class in the game. ;)

No seriously, I wouldn't go so far to drop roles just because each class has abilities to kill things and I'm no fan of the changes that created class mashups but I guess you know that by now.
Having interchangeable classes is boring. We had that in Guild Wars 1 for example and I didn't like it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BangoTwinkletoes

I wasn't aware that engaging in a discussion regarding the merits of allowing a certain race to be able to play a class was "griping". When did that rule kick in?

---

So now it's misquoting me, is it, putting things I said into a different otder? Classy. Real classy.

What I called 'griping' was your sarcastic remark about me having my 'lore priorities intact', and I stand by what I said:

I said the hobby-horses were a dreadful idea, back when we first heard about them. I said the pet Huorns were a dreadful idea, when they were announced. I argued endlessly with maradakia and others about playable skin-changers. I'm also saying hobbit Champions would be a dreadful idea. So you can quit your griping.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fratonia

Hmm, by that definition the bard was designed to be the ultimate weapon of mass destruction because the obvious evidence is all around us, right? And I always thought that bards are healers. Boy was I wrong...

---

Actually, "bards" are musicians and story tellers. Their use of song and speech allows them to bolster their friends... and raise their spirits. In terms of gaming mechanics, that often translates into healing. But, even still, bards never really fit the definition of "healer" the way a traditional "cleric" would.

And, unlike their cleric counter-parts, bards have always had considerable skills for combat (not that clerics couldn't/wouldn't fight). Let's not forget that a bard's songs and stories often come from their own adventures... and adventures they hear about. Bards are well-known for their powerful voices which can be leveraged to devastating effect on the battlefield both to support their allies and demoralize their foes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheCrossbow

Actually, "bards" are musicians and story tellers. Their use of song and speech allows them to bolster their friends... and raise their spirits. In terms of gaming mechanics, that often translates into healing. But, even still, bards never really fit the definition of "healer" the way a traditional "cleric" would.

And, unlike their cleric counter-parts, bards have always had considerable skills for combat (not that clerics couldn't/wouldn't fight). Let's not forget that a bard's songs and stories often come from their own adventures... and adventures they hear about. Bards are well-known for their powerful voices which can be leveraged to devastating effect on the battlefield both to support their allies and demoralize their foes.

---

Sounds great when put like that but what it means in practice is I YELL AT THINGS AND THEY DIE.

Pro tip: when baddies run away, they're demoralized. When they fall over and you can loot them, they're dead :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

So now it's misquoting me, is it, putting things I said into a different otder? Classy. Real classy.

What I called 'griping' was your sarcastic remark about me having my 'lore priorities intact', and I stand by what I said:

I said the hobby-horses were a dreadful idea, back when we first heard about them. I said the pet Huorns were a dreadful idea, when they were announced. I argued endlessly with maradakia and others about playable skin-changers. I'm also saying hobbit Champions would be a dreadful idea. So you can quit your griping.

---

Indeed that was an honest mistake on my part - which is why I try not to break up and multi-quote. Perhaps you could have asked that before jumping in with both feet and try to score a silly point? As you said, "real classy" ;)

The original above still shows that you're now throwing insults instead of having a straight forward discussion. No sarcasm intended on my part but I cannot help what you infer from a straight forward statement.

Anyhow, you've shown everyone here how your argument defaults into an attack when someone has the sheer temerity to continue a discussion with you beyond the point when you believe you have won. Some of the comments you make about the OP are just downright bad. I think I'll leave it there for you to go back and review them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BangoTwinkletoes

Indeed that was an honest mistake on my part - which is why I try not to break up and multi-quote. Perhaps you could have asked that before jumping in with both feet and try to score a silly point? As you said, "real classy" ;)

---

Multiquoting doesn't swap things round. And that still doesn't explain why you also used selective quotation to take that line out of context. Classy. Real classy. :p

Rest ignored as being beyond belief.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

Multiquoting doesn't swap things round. And that still doesn't explain why you also used selective quotation to take that line out of context. Classy. Real classy. :p

Rest ignored as being beyond belief.

---

Well it was a genuine error - otherwise I would not be bothering to explain it. Glad that my post was beyond belief for you. ;)

OK, I guess we're done. Sorry guys.