D&D General One thing I hate about the Sorcerer

Vaalingrade

Legend
As an inside I really hate the word 'mundane' being used as a stand-in for not supernatural. It breathes life into the notion that only magic can be incredible, fantastic, special. Looking at all the things that exist in our world and calling the artistry of the great architects, the prowess of great athletes and the genius of greatest scholars mundane is a phenomenon I will never understand. There are plenty of wondrous things and wondrous people I would never consider mundane.
At some point, people decided that only direct, specific magic could be fantastic and there could be no badass normals--even to the level of real people like Jack Lalane. 20th level fighters wish they were capable of half as awesome a feat as that man was capable of at 70.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Aldarc

Legend
Arthurian myths are vague, as there are so many different versions. The original tales they're based on are more wild, whilst the later retellings seem to be more grounded.

In any case Arthur is still a good high example of a high level fighter, whilst Beowulf is another one. I see them as two differnt progression paths from the same roots. One evolves to become a leader, and the another evolves to have superhuman capacities. When gamified, I can see both being viable.

This is also why I don't want warlord to be a separate class, I want it to be something a fighter can become, like in how old school D&D fighters often evolved to be leaders. Same with "superhuman" warrior. One issue with the fighter is that if anything that is more involved than hitting things mundanely with sharp sticks gets spun into separate classes, so there is no much room for the fighter to grow.
So many magical archetypes have been given the chance to grow because they were unshackled from the wizard. I think it's fine to unshackle a few more archetypes, including the warlord, from the fighter.
 


Campbell

Relaxed Intensity
I think if you want the current Fighter and Warlord to exist within the same class chassis you have to reduce the footprint of things like extra attacks, action surge etc to leave more room for customization to occur. Otherwise, you are only going to ever be slightly a leader of men. It's never going to be a defining element of your character. I'd be fine with fewer classes, but then you have to actually give subclasses / talents / whatever design space to operate in.
 

I think if you want the current Fighter and Warlord to exist within the same class chassis you have to reduce the footprint of things like extra attacks, action surge etc to leave more room for customization to occur. Otherwise, you are only going to ever be slightly a leader of men. It's never going to be a defining element of your character. I'd be fine with fewer classes, but then you have to actually give subclasses / talents / whatever design space to operate in.
Yeah, that's fair, and I agree. I wish subclasses had a bit more meat on them.
 

Aldarc

Legend
Yeah, but I think that was a mistake too...
Just because you dislike the choices made doesn't make it a "mistake." That said, I don't really think that these other classes or archetypes would sit comfortably within the wizard chassis for much the same reason that you agree above with Campbell about other archetypes on the fighter chassis, particularly in regards to the wizard being closely associated with Intelligence and spellbooks.
 

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
I think if you want the current Fighter and Warlord to exist within the same class chassis you have to reduce the footprint of things like extra attacks, action surge etc to leave more room for customization to occur. Otherwise, you are only going to ever be slightly a leader of men. It's never going to be a defining element of your character. I'd be fine with fewer classes, but then you have to actually give subclasses / talents / whatever design space to operate in.
I like them as separate classes in modern D&D. Too many many fiddly bits to put all that in one. In an OSR game it would be, and should be, a different story.
 

Yaarel

He Mage
I like them as separate classes in modern D&D. Too many many fiddly bits to put all that in one. In an OSR game it would be, and should be, a different story.
A 5e version of Warlord can even use the Warlock chassis. The Warlord class would have Martial spells, namely "maneuvers", written up using the spell format with its flavors carefully nonmagical. That the spell points refresh per Short Rest, to recover from fatigue, is perfect.

Gishy casters might even pick a few of these Martial spells among their respective caster spells.
 

Remathilis

Legend
Yeah, but I think that was a mistake too...
Well that brings us round to the OP, doesn't it?

How do you model a Gandalf, Merlin, Harry Potter, Circe, Harry Dresden, Constantine, Stephen Strange, Glinda, and scores of magic user archetypes in one class. Why strap them all with a book and force them to be scholars? Why can't there be a variety of different types of casters? Why shackle them all to one class?
 

I think if you want the current Fighter and Warlord to exist within the same class chassis you have to reduce the footprint of things like extra attacks, action surge etc to leave more room for customization to occur. Otherwise, you are only going to ever be slightly a leader of men. It's never going to be a defining element of your character. I'd be fine with fewer classes, but then you have to actually give subclasses / talents / whatever design space to operate in.
I've said in the past that Commander's Strike/Direct the Strike should be a fighting style. And Inspiring Word (complete with spending a hit die) should be a BM maneuver, as should Powerful Warning. Possibly Inspiring Word should be an option you can take in place of Second Wind.
 

Remove ads

Top