5E "Warlord" Fighter sub-class from MMHFT podcast. Further duscussion. - Page 7
Notice: This is a Wiki Thread. You are allowed to edit it. (?)
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567
Results 61 to 66 of 66
  1. #61
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Lincoln, Nebraska
    Posts
    6,597
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony Vargas View Post
    Ok, maybe not that easily, everytime...
    I get infuriated at the Clerics attempts and the rage building up allows me to dig deeper sending pain killing adrenaline and heroic vigor rises within me.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Edenvale, San Jose, CA
    Posts
    14,043
    Quote Originally Posted by Garthanos View Post
    I reject all gods can the Cleric heal me?
    I suppose he can, you just might not appreciate it...

  3. #63
    My own version of the warlord is a martial adept with maneuvers from the school "White Raven" from "Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords", and adding the monster subtype "squad" for a humanoid group, or beast pack, fighting like a swarn, a single unit) and "morality points", something like a "protoss shield" from Starcraft. If the squad lose all morality points, a second pool of hit points, they don't lose levels of health but the squad is demoraliced. This allows warlord class powers or maneuvers to heal the "morality points" of their squads without using magic or postive energy.
    Laugh OB1 laughed with this post

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Lincoln, Nebraska
    Posts
    6,597
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony Vargas View Post
    I suppose he can, you just might not appreciate it...
    Or he cannot as the gods refuse my character in return ... because a clerics abilities arent supposed to just be spells.

    This kind of thing was actually discussed on the APAs like Alarums and Excursions back in the late 70s and 80s. Clerical miracles not feeling at all miraculous.
    Last edited by Garthanos; Thursday, 12th April, 2018 at 09:25 AM.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Edenvale, San Jose, CA
    Posts
    14,043
    Quote Originally Posted by bkwrm79 View Post
    I know it's a first draft, but I hope if they move forward they manage to avoid:

    1) implying the Warlord knows better than other party members how other party members can best use their abilities
    This build is very INT-based and tactical, so it's going, by its nature, to imply that the Warlord has and passes on 'Tactical Insights' about the situation that will allow allies to make better use (specifically, in this case, +2d10 damage, to start) of their abilities than they might without that insight. Since the ally can use the insight either for healing or for that damage buff, it seems that he still 'knows best,' how to apply it to his own abilities.

    2) "you and your allies howl in rage" (or any other "you and your allies do X" things)
    That's an issue in 5e that it wasn't in 4e, where fluff was decoupled from mechanics and mutable (could be 're-skinned'), so they should watch out for getting too narrow or specific in the designs lest they create gambits that are un-suitable for many warlords and even anathema to some of their allies. You don't want pacifist clerics howling in rage or barbarians becoming calm & centered. ;P

    3) "you order your allies..." "you direct your allies..."
    So far Tactical Insights are very clearly voluntary - the ally decides whether & when to use them, and I believe the Gambits are as well. Did you notice any that weren't?

    It's the kind of thing that's mainly about wording, rather than about concept or what the ability does mechanically. The original Commander's Strike, for instance, was phrased in a way that both made it incoherent under the explanation of how powers were read and seemingly non-optional on the part of the ally. The updated version removed both issues.

    Hopefully they won't make that kind of mistake again.
    Last edited by Tony Vargas; Wednesday, 18th April, 2018 at 12:45 AM.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Edenvale, San Jose, CA
    Posts
    14,043
    Quote Originally Posted by Garthanos View Post
    Or he cannot as the gods refuse my character in return ... because a clerics abilities arentt supposed to just be spells.

    This kind of thing was actually discussed on the APAs like Alarums and Excursions back in the late 70s and 80s. Clerical miracles not feeling at all miraculous.
    Nod. In 5e the DM, as the arbiter of the world, would decide if the cleric's powers came direct & revocably from the god, in which case, he would, in the person of the deity, decide whether any give spell was granted and whether any give spell worked. OTOH, in 1e low-level spells came from the cleric, himself, and higher level ones were granted - IIRC, irrevocably, because they were indeed, just spells - by intermediaries, so a cleric could 'miss-use' spells, he just might not be granted more later. OTOOH, in 4e, a cleric received his power upon becoming a cleric, and it was his from then on, making him responsible for it's use or misuse (then again, in 4e Healing Word let you spend a surge, so if your character rejected the gods you could just choose not to).
    Last edited by Tony Vargas; Wednesday, 18th April, 2018 at 12:44 AM.

Quick Reply Quick Reply

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 66
    Last Post: Wednesday, 21st June, 2017, 01:09 AM
  2. DDI Sept - "PH3 Skill Powers", "Fighter: Great Weapon", etc.
    By kenmarable in forum *General Roleplaying Games Discussion
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: Saturday, 29th August, 2009, 04:55 PM
  3. Hopes for the "Warlord" Class
    By ptolemy18 in forum *Pathfinder, Starfinder, Older D&D Editions (4E, 3.x, 2E, 1E, OD&D), D&D Variants, OSR
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: Friday, 24th August, 2007, 06:39 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •