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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 5773016" data-attributes="member: 4937">I sympathize with you greatly.However, I very much hope you or someone like you isn't in charge of 5E design.To speak freely, I think you've become cynical and disspirited.  Now, I can't blame you in that exactly, but I do want to say that just because you've seen obvious problems go largely unsolved and ignored for years doesn't mean that no solution exists or that we must settle for something which, while perhaps fine in itself, is perhaps a solution to a problem other than the one we had in the first place.There is absolutely no reason why these things can't be done in a single interesting well done fighter class.  The tools are there, but among other things it requires a less hesitant, passive and conservative skills system than 3e provided.  Tumble is an example of where they could go with skills having potentially relevant roles in combat.  It also means accepting that skills beyond a certain level represent superheroic and not merely mundane ability - Batman's abilities at dodging out of rooms unseen, taking long cuts to end up ahead of those he chases, jumping from incredible heights without taking damage, and so forth.You mean by letting non-magical characters still perform magic.  This is the cynics solution to the problem, and I reject it.Notice that we keep trending towards, "Well, if only spellcasters can be awesome sauce, we ought to let everyone be spellcasters."?  But note, that the real problem is, "Everyone should be able to be awesome sauce."I agree with you that unusual play styles shouldn't be marginalized, but in older edition's defense, part of the problem is that a mount usually is more trouble than they are worth in a many dungeons.   The real problem here is the assumption that dungeon delving is the core activity of the game, and so other varieties of play don't need full support.  The game should let you play the game you want to play, whether its Cossacks on the steppes of the 'Real World', or fantasy dungeon delvers in a quasi-medieval tolkien-esk consensus fantasy settings.  If your campaign takes place on an virtually endless open plain, mounts are going to play a big role and the rules should support that.  If you are in a maze of twisty passages, all alike, then it should support that to and not insist that, because the game has mounts that they must be just as useful (Poke-mounts) in all situations.  This suggest one of the reasons I dislike the notion of a 'mounted class' and other narrow and inflexible concepts.</blockquote>

Verification