Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Wik" data-source="post: 6675968" data-attributes="member: 40177">It's a good name for the issue, and I'm firmly in the first group.&nbsp; Though I can live with 5e letting all of those cavalier abilities you mention to exist.&nbsp; It's fine to have a bit of flavour in a side class, SO LONG as it's in addition to some much broader ideas.&nbsp; Also, your version doesn't mention weapon specialization, which is something I'm huge set against in 5e, for reasons mentioned above.A &quot;Cavalier&quot; variant would be all aces with me.&nbsp; BUT, I think 5e would be much better suited to have a &quot;mounted warrior&quot; variant or something like that, which has in the class descrption something along the lines of &quot;this could be a holy knight, a cavalier, a persian immortal, or a dwarf on an angry boar&quot;.&nbsp; I think letting players fluff their mechanics is the best approach for an RPG.&nbsp; &nbsp; I've done the other games, and they're not for me.&nbsp; I think it should mostly cater towards the first side of things, because that side allows individual groups to look towards their own play interests more readily.&nbsp; I don't like how in the last two decades, D&amp;D has been more and more about designers making flavour choices on what D&amp;D is and isn't.&nbsp; Mechanical variety?&nbsp; Yes.&nbsp; But too much flavour in there, and it becomes a case of &quot;well, you have a cavalier.&nbsp; Why isn't there a phalanx?&nbsp; And then, well, you have a phalanx... why isn't there a legionnaire?&quot;&nbsp; I'd much prefer we keep the game painted in broad strokes.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Wik, post: 6675968, member: 40177"] It's a good name for the issue, and I'm firmly in the first group. Though I can live with 5e letting all of those cavalier abilities you mention to exist. It's fine to have a bit of flavour in a side class, SO LONG as it's in addition to some much broader ideas. Also, your version doesn't mention weapon specialization, which is something I'm huge set against in 5e, for reasons mentioned above. A "Cavalier" variant would be all aces with me. BUT, I think 5e would be much better suited to have a "mounted warrior" variant or something like that, which has in the class descrption something along the lines of "this could be a holy knight, a cavalier, a persian immortal, or a dwarf on an angry boar". I think letting players fluff their mechanics is the best approach for an RPG. I've done the other games, and they're not for me. I think it should mostly cater towards the first side of things, because that side allows individual groups to look towards their own play interests more readily. I don't like how in the last two decades, D&D has been more and more about designers making flavour choices on what D&D is and isn't. Mechanical variety? Yes. But too much flavour in there, and it becomes a case of "well, you have a cavalier. Why isn't there a phalanx? And then, well, you have a phalanx... why isn't there a legionnaire?" I'd much prefer we keep the game painted in broad strokes. [/QUOTE]

Verification