Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Andor" data-source="post: 5868015" data-attributes="member: 1879">I do not want a Tempest in 5e. Or a master of throwing, spear-chucker, combat bowler, or Caberdancer.3e had a bad habit of proping up sub-optimal or poorly portrayed combat styles with prestige classes made to support them.I have a few problems with this:1) Pointless class proliferation.2) The base combat system should contain enough modules/options/crunch to support a reasonable portrayal of a spear fighter vs a sword and board fighter vs dual-weilding dagger man. 3) The fighter class is the weapons maven, he should not need extra training to become competant with common weapon styles, or even exotic ones. 4) Not all fighting styles are equal. You could try dual wielding bowling balls on the battle field, I bet it would be hilarious when posted on youtube. Not all combat styles need to be of equal worth in the game. 5) Not all weapons are equal. Maces are better than clubs, that's why people paid smiths to make them, rather than just using handy tree roots. The bow is a better ranged weapon than the rock. The rock is not ineffective mind you, I would not want to catch a rock thrown by a major league pitcher. But an archer has got better range, better accuracy, possibly a higher rate of fire, and the arrow benefits from having pointy steel bits on to bring the pain. There should not be a &quot;Devotee of the hurled shist&quot; presitge class to try and make stone throwing the equal of archery.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Andor, post: 5868015, member: 1879"] I do not want a Tempest in 5e. Or a master of throwing, spear-chucker, combat bowler, or Caberdancer. 3e had a bad habit of proping up sub-optimal or poorly portrayed combat styles with prestige classes made to support them. I have a few problems with this: 1) Pointless class proliferation. 2) The base combat system should contain enough modules/options/crunch to support a reasonable portrayal of a spear fighter vs a sword and board fighter vs dual-weilding dagger man. 3) The fighter class is the weapons maven, he should not need extra training to become competant with common weapon styles, or even exotic ones. 4) Not all fighting styles are equal. You could try dual wielding bowling balls on the battle field, I bet it would be hilarious when posted on youtube. Not all combat styles need to be of equal worth in the game. 5) Not all weapons are equal. Maces are better than clubs, that's why people paid smiths to make them, rather than just using handy tree roots. The bow is a better ranged weapon than the rock. The rock is not ineffective mind you, I would not want to catch a rock thrown by a major league pitcher. But an archer has got better range, better accuracy, possibly a higher rate of fire, and the arrow benefits from having pointy steel bits on to bring the pain. There should not be a "Devotee of the hurled shist" presitge class to try and make stone throwing the equal of archery. [/QUOTE]

Verification