Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aenghus" data-source="post: 5980192" data-attributes="member: 2656">The motivation of my original post , I think, originated in a concern that the static nature of 3e combat manoeuvre for melee PCs (as I found casters tend to run around, dimension door etc much more ) was boring and not designed to be as static as it turned out, but an accidental emergent property of the system.  Mechanics created to add mobility mostly didn't work as intended.The next edition looks like it is deliberately being less designed, and hence may suffer from accidental emergent properties and unintended side effects. Comments on a need for more DM reliance to make the system work seem to support this. I currently have a number of more casual players whose ideas are influenced by over the top manga. They aren't really interested in D&D as small unit tactics, and I think slaughtering their PCs for not maintaining a rigid SOP is a bad idea.Editions of D&D have varied on the power levels available to PCs implementing various character concepts. The swashbuckler or light fighter is one that has varied in effectiveness over the editions, but in 3e was worse due to the static nature of melee combat.I don't think players should be punished for their character concepts, nor should people with decent system mastery be forced to choose between following their concept, which happens to suck mechanically, or playing something that is mechanically effective but they aren't drawn to.Players should have simpler classes available to them, but there are multiple reasons for wanting a simpler class. Casual players are one important group, but I've had highly invested players who just happen to lack system mastery. I think it's  important that no classes be sabotaged so as to produce a sucky game experience for those that use them.I also think the rewards for system mastery should be limited. The largest "character sheets" I ever had were for two high level 2nd edition spellcasters, along with photocopies of all the spells and monsters I researched and invented to leverage their power and nova potential. I think it's easier to get spells approved than improvised manoeuvers, as in the former case it's possible to wait till the referee is in a good mood and try and sneak the broken stuff through hidden in more innocuous material, whereas during play referees are busy and more critical, so more likely to be harsh to improvisation.But I do think binding the base tactics too close to reality is dangerous in a game with huge  physics-defying dragons flying around, giants, cloud castles etc.It's important that swashbucklers and such niche concepts be viable in the core rules, and not be accidentally gimped.</blockquote>

Verification