Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
"Warlord" Fighter sub-class from MMHFT podcast. Further duscussion.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7394624" data-attributes="member: 996"><p>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.</p><p></p><p> 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</p><p></p><p> 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? </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>Hopefully they won't make that kind of mistake again.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7394624, member: 996"] 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. 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 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
"Warlord" Fighter sub-class from MMHFT podcast. Further duscussion.
Top