Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8199629" data-attributes="member: 42582">Not really, though I don't think reading what I said in that way changes my point.D&amp;D doesn't do white wizards - healers, diviners etc - very well. Nor witches, be they white or green or malevolent - druids are about as close as it gets. And the closest to a necromancer in the undead-spawning sense is a traditional anti-cleric, who isn't a lot like the ancient sorcerers Conan tends to face off against; and if we think of necromancy in the sense of speaking to the dead, conjuring spirits for information and power, etc, then D&amp;D doesn't traditionally do that all that well either.Given the context of your post as a reply to the OP about the original classes, I was thinking of the core of D&amp;D rather than the periphery created by the vast amount of material created for 3E D&amp;D and its offshoots.4e also provides some of what I mention: invokers are &quot;white wizards&quot;, the ranger is Robin Hood, and with warlocks and various primal and arcane options there are few more pathways to witches than in the classic game. The 4e ritual system also gets closer to permitting necromancy in a literal (rather than undead horde) sense. 4e is still not very good at knights.Of the fantasy/mediaeval RPGs that I know, the only one that makes mounted combat seamless is Prince Valiant. (Mostly because it has a much more relaxed action economy than many RPGs.) Characters get unhorsed, pull enemies from their horses, mount up, ride down their enemies, etc. All the things those heavily armed and armoured D&amp;D characters should do if they were going to live up to their tropes, but don't.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8199629, member: 42582"] Not really, though I don't think reading what I said in that way changes my point. D&D doesn't do white wizards - healers, diviners etc - very well. Nor witches, be they white or green or malevolent - druids are about as close as it gets. And the closest to a necromancer in the undead-spawning sense is a traditional anti-cleric, who isn't a lot like the ancient sorcerers Conan tends to face off against; and if we think of necromancy in the sense of speaking to the dead, conjuring spirits for information and power, etc, then D&D doesn't traditionally do that all that well either. Given the context of your post as a reply to the OP about the original classes, I was thinking of the core of D&D rather than the periphery created by the vast amount of material created for 3E D&D and its offshoots. 4e also provides some of what I mention: invokers are "white wizards", the ranger is Robin Hood, and with warlocks and various primal and arcane options there are few more pathways to witches than in the classic game. The 4e ritual system also gets closer to permitting necromancy in a literal (rather than undead horde) sense. 4e is still not very good at knights. Of the fantasy/mediaeval RPGs that I know, the only one that makes mounted combat seamless is Prince Valiant. (Mostly because it has a much more relaxed action economy than many RPGs.) Characters get unhorsed, pull enemies from their horses, mount up, ride down their enemies, etc. All the things those heavily armed and armoured D&D characters [I]should [/I]do if they were going to live up to their tropes, but don't. [/QUOTE]

Verification