Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ratskinner" data-source="post: 6388153" data-attributes="member: 6688937">I really question that assertion for the 5e rules, but I wouldn't say that I've played or ran it enough to definitively know, yet. My reading and experiments writing up lvl3 characters give me the impression that 5e will be the easiest/most effective versions of swashbuckling types right out of the box...even if there's no (sub)class specifically labelled as such. OTOH, mobility-based character types will always suffer in mobility-restricted places like dungeons, which makes perfect sense, IMO.&lt;snippage&gt;Of course the only solution isn't bloat....you could go play another game! <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing&nbsp; &nbsp; :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" /> Sorry, I felt compelled. Although, also, if you (anyone) haven't gone out and tried a bunch of other games I highly recommend it (the weirder the game, the better). In your first post, you were sounding agreement and enthusiasm with the thought that there were character types that D&amp;D had neglected and that the solution to that was to write new (sub)class for these:In response to the OP of this thread, and you quoted a good deal of that post, not just the one suggestion and the last line of what you quoted is: &quot;We can use this list as project source material.&quot; Now, the attitude that a lot of things need a (sub)class is recipe for bloat. I think that's fairly obvious.* If you were expressing simply a desire to see good swashbucklers in 5e...that's fine, I think its already there in several possible versions. As a mea culpa, I think upon re-reading my previous reply to you that I didn't make it clear that I was addressing that attitude and not the swashbuckler in specific.&nbsp; *Although whether bloat is good or bad is a matter of preference, some people like it that's why I said YMMV.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ratskinner, post: 6388153, member: 6688937"] I [I]really [/I]question that assertion for the 5e rules, but I wouldn't say that I've played or ran it enough to definitively know, yet. My reading and experiments writing up lvl3 characters give me the impression that 5e will be the easiest/most effective versions of swashbuckling types right out of the box...even if there's no (sub)class specifically labelled as such. OTOH, mobility-based character types will always suffer in mobility-restricted places like dungeons, which makes perfect sense, IMO. <snippage> Of course the only solution isn't bloat....you could go play another game! :lol: Sorry, I felt compelled. Although, also, if you (anyone) [I]haven't[/I] gone out and tried a bunch of other games I highly recommend it (the weirder the game, the better). In your first post, you were sounding agreement and enthusiasm with the thought that there were character types that D&D had neglected and that the solution to that was to write new (sub)class for these: In response to the OP of this thread, and you quoted a good deal of that post, not just the one suggestion and the last line of what you quoted is: "We can use this list as project source material." Now, the attitude that a lot of things need a (sub)class is recipe for bloat. I think that's fairly obvious.* If you were expressing simply a desire to see good swashbucklers in 5e...that's fine, I think its already there in several possible versions. As a [I]mea culpa[/I], I think upon re-reading my previous reply to you that I didn't make it clear that I was addressing that attitude and not the swashbuckler in specific. *Although whether bloat is good or bad is a matter of preference, some people like it that's why I said YMMV. [/QUOTE]

Verification