Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6883002" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Going to quickly c/p something I recently posted from another thread that hasn't gotten any traction from long-time D&amp;D players.&nbsp; The only real responders were&nbsp; @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=996" target="_blank">Tony Vargas</a> and&nbsp; @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=42582" target="_blank">pemerton</a> who, likely correctly, pointed out that most long-time D&amp;D players may not have had these &quot;Battle of Thermopolae&quot; tropes in their games and/or played much around or above name level (unlike the games I ran during that era).&nbsp; Tony also agreed that it was likely unintentional/unforseen, making particular note of the reverse phenomenon; Ancient Dragons being particularly vulnerable to large swaths of peasants.So honestly, I think the above unintentional effects of BA on martial warriors' ability to wade into hordes and reap canon fodder + the removal of a default &quot;sticky melee&quot;/the removal of 1/turn OA action economy (and the AD&amp;D equivalent) is a pretty radical change to D&amp;D's historical fighter paradigm.&nbsp; And it certainly isn't helping out the balance equation at high levels!&nbsp; That is, unless folks are running with the Cleave module to amend the Fighter loss of &quot;reaping&quot; and the Mark module to partially (but certainly not wholly) amend the &quot;sticky melee&quot; change.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 6883002, member: 6696971"] Going to quickly c/p something I recently posted from another thread that hasn't gotten any traction from long-time D&D players. The only real responders were @[I][B][U][URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=996"]Tony Vargas[/URL][/U][/B][/I] and @[I][B][U][URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=42582"]pemerton[/URL][/U][/B][/I] who, likely correctly, pointed out that most long-time D&D players may not have had these "Battle of Thermopolae" tropes in their games and/or played much around or above name level (unlike the games I ran during that era). Tony also agreed that it was likely unintentional/unforseen, making particular note of the reverse phenomenon; Ancient Dragons being particularly vulnerable to large swaths of peasants. So honestly, I think the above unintentional effects of BA on martial warriors' ability to wade into hordes and reap canon fodder + the removal of a default "sticky melee"/the removal of 1/turn OA action economy (and the AD&D equivalent) is a pretty radical change to D&D's historical fighter paradigm. And it certainly isn't helping out the balance equation at high levels! That is, unless folks are running with the Cleave module to amend the Fighter loss of "reaping" and the Mark module to partially (but certainly not wholly) amend the "sticky melee" change. [/QUOTE]

Verification