SixFootGnome said:
I'd incline to say that being rich and deftly navigating feudal obligations would be an equally valid description of what defines a knight, and having no permanent dwelling as defining for a nomad. I understand what you're trying to say about there being a 'mounted combat' mystique, but I don't feel that it is truly central to either of those more than it is for someone else who elects to do so. Rather, there is just this nebulous concept of mounted combat, which I think could be adequately expressed through feats and skills rather than through a dedicated class.
That isn't to say that feats and skills rather than a dedicated class is a better solution save only that it prevents the sticky issue of balancing someone whose primary class ability is much easier to interfere with than is typical.
I'm hoping that the man-at-arms gets diverse mastery options and more than IL-standard feats. Then some of those can be set aside to do riding while still having a normal number of feats for normal combat from-the-saddle. That's about all the enablement that I really see as needful. The core problem with mounted combat normally is that in order to get the good feats for it the character has to otherwise put himself *way behind* most other characters in terms of his dismounted capabilities. If the man-at-arms is truly capable as a generalist, he may be able to choose mounted combat as one area of skill without completely hosing himself otherwise.
Hmm, I'd say that being rich and deftly navigating feudal obligations is in many ways distinctly un-knightlike, but I'll give you much of the rest.
It's just that there is a mystique that I think DnD is particularly silly about not exploring. It's not that you can't do it right through feats and traits, but that there is a level of rightness that you miss. I think that in many ways is rather silly about punishing people who want to ride a horse as a stick, it's true of unarmed fighters as well, and then giving them huge benefits otherwise. It's not a terrible system, but it does lead to the situation you describe above.
I don't think it has to be that way. I think that if you are good at riding a horse and combat from the top of a horse it will give you plenty of lessons that will also serve you well when you aren't riding a horse.
Were I to put it in the terms that IL used for its other classes, and let's call this class the Cavalier for the moment:
Cavalier: Drawing on charisma, endurance, and perfect timing the cavalier is an unmatched horseman. His charges hit with devastating power. If a foe unmounts him, he calls upon his durability and matchless courage to carry him through the fray.
It certainly fits the overall 'theory' of the game particularly if it's going to include item dependent classes like the archer and, well, everyone except for the theoretical unarmed combat focused weapon master.
Not to say that I don't recognize the difference between the size of a horse and most other mundane equipment, but it's a martial archetype that I think is under-used in the gaming system. To carry over from another model I mentioned earlier:
Beastmaster: While other warriors rely on steel and art, the beastmaster uses his domineering personality to craft weapons from his animal companions and to crush the spirit of his foes. A master of horse, hound, and hawk, the beastmaster harnesses the human spirit as a noble leader or demoralizing sadist.
As I said I think there are a number of different ways to do this, but I don't really think of this as a criticism of Iron Lore as a backhanded bit of praise. I've rarely seen a system that made me want to rectify this problem in DnD as much as this has. Well, AE did it pretty well with the Totem Warrior, though it had that AE mystic touch and lacked a mount oriented version.
On a complete and total side note. Trying to sum up classes in the manner of that design diary is tremendous hoot. I highly recommend it.
