Why are there no sneaky leaders?

[Nifft]

A thing that the people saying "strikers need mobility!" are missing is this:

Mobility is not "how many squares of move I have".

A class who's schtick was being a heavily armored individual who could plow straight through enemies (ie - he's allowed to move through enemy squares for some reason) would be far more maneuverable in melee than one who gains +1 movement.

So by this line of reasoning a Fighter with his Push-and-Shift powers is fairly mobile? I could certainly live with a full-blown Striker like that.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Nifft]

Nifft, you've got some splainin' to do.

Uh, it was the mushrooms what made me do it?

"Certainly not the badgers", -- N

 

[Saeviomagy]

So by this line of reasoning a Fighter with his Push-and-Shift powers is fairly mobile? I could certainly live with a full-blown Striker like that.

Cheers, -- N

Well, yeah. The main thing precluding us from producing a heavily armored, melee weapon-wielding striker is that wizards, despite apparently not aiming to do so, already gave the fighter every bit of mobility and damage-dealing capability that it's necessary for a striker to have.

As I've complained about in other threads, it seems that any time a new bunch of martial powers comes out, everything that one might consider strikery goes straight to the fighter.

 

[Flipguarder]

I think they brainstorm tons of random defender powers and then say this

"is it primal, earthy, plant like? Give it to the warden"
"is it teleporty? Give it to the swordmage"
"Is it diviney? Give it to the paladin"
"Is it very controller-like or does it do a lot of damage or it doesn't fit into any of the others? Give it to the fighter."

 

[Destil]

A thing that the people saying "strikers need mobility!" are missing is this:

Mobility is not "how many squares of move I have".

A class who's schtick was being a heavily armored individual who could plow straight through enemies (ie - he's allowed to move through enemy squares for some reason) would be far more maneuverable in melee than one who gains +1 movement.

Barbarians can do this already...

 

[Dice4Hire]

There are a few move-through-enemy's-spaces-powers The Barbarian has a nice at-will

ALso, anyone can Bull Rush, though not everyone can effectively do it.

 

[Jhaelen]

I expect to see something very similar to the Duelists Panache... DP allows a rogue to apply dex as an additional boost to athletics (why isnt climbing have a dex emphasis).

Could be called Fearsome Might?

If you can get a bonus to attack and damage from every ability score, I don't see why you shouldn't be able to boost any skill with any attribute.

Ultimately I can see two ways that the evolution of D&D might follow:
1) get rid of ability scores entirely; just use static bonuses and/or bonuses based on level.
2) don't create a fixed link between ability scores and skills. This is basically what WoD does: Depending on what exactly you're trying to achieve with a skill, it's paired with a different attribute. E.g.
- if you're using Dungeoneering to identify an aberration, use your Int mod.
- if you're using Dungeoneering to notice hazardous terrain, use your Wis mod.
- if you're using Dungeoneering to dig a tunnel, use your Str mod.
etc.