Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 6279670" data-attributes="member: 92511">Awlll righty. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />How so? I mean, the fact that a Cavalier class was available didn't, to my understanding, make it so having a Fighter character who could fight mounted was somehow inconsequential or inferior. I don't see the "taking away from the fighter" so much as "offering another option to do a mounted fighter."...with, as you noted, a sick amount of extra prestige/wealth/abilities...but it was, afterall, the 1e UA and that's kinda what that book was all about what we would now consider "breaking/broken options". hahaha. Whether that was noticed and/or intentional or just "We gotta offer players the classes in the cartoon" and they got a little carried away, I can't say. It can be. Sure. It seems almost universal that our "hero" mythological (cultural, literary, et al...) archetypes are the fighters/sword swingers and double as (by desire, design or reluctantly) the "leaders" [not to be taken as the 4e term!] of their respective stories/bands.Again, I don't see the cav "taking that" away from the fighter. Just the game giving us more than one type of character who can fill that role.I thought I was following right up til that last sentence. But I lost it...More spells for casters and more caster classes with expanding abilities. Got it. More martial/non-magic-using classes (though I would posit significantly less than caster/magic-using classes) creates...less expanding abilities?I mean, I get the more you divy up the specialized classes, the narrower you have to get with their expertise...but how does this 'hedge out" mechanical expansion for the original martial classes [by which I am assuming you mean Fighters and Rogues?].More options built-in. Which, in theory, would amount to less options available overall. Yes. I suppose so. This doesn't, though mean the Fighter can't take similar options/make almost a duplicate character if a player desires...since the Fighter would have more options (be they "skill slots, weapon proficiencies, maneuvers" etc... or even stuff like "alignment options" or "armor permitted") which the already detailed cav doesn't.I'm not sure if I agree...But this opinion of "having some of the same things as a Fighter" equates to "taking stuff away from the Fighter" seems to be very popular. I find it...interesting and unusual to my sensibilities.</blockquote>

Verification