Jacob Lewis
Ye Olde GM
What if the perfect edition actually turns out to be Pathfinder 2e...? 
D&D General The perfect D&D edition (according to ENWORLD)
- Thread starter Sacrosanct
- Start date
I already have a perfect edition! Or as near perfect as it is going to get: The mishmash of editions and houserules I use at my table haha.
Of course, the stuff posted by the original poster seems...I dunno. Lets just say I guess my games have a largely different style than most that posted in those threads and that we enjoy different things!
Was never a fan of 'design by committee'.
Of course, the stuff posted by the original poster seems...I dunno. Lets just say I guess my games have a largely different style than most that posted in those threads and that we enjoy different things!
Was never a fan of 'design by committee'.
Keldryn
Adventurer
G
Guest 6801328
Guest
Maybe lowkey could chime in about how "easy" it is to ignore paladins.
I hate rapiers with about 4.7% of the seething passion with which I hate the very concept of Warlords, but even then I don't find it easy to ignore them. They show up at almost every game I play. They're there, un-ignorable, an abomination polluting the game. Even though I never personally choose to use them.
Garthanos
Arcadian Knight
I might too... not much digging some of the impact of bounded accuracy nor increased lethality (faux difficulty in disguise making the game bound to random chance) but I think I may have found some options to get around bounded accuracy at least.
Last edited:
Garthanos
Arcadian Knight
Using the words abomination and hate so easily and bringing up their hate in virtually every post indicates to me someone very selfish not actually what you are looking for in contributors.
Zardnaar
Legend
Very few things I actually hate, Seafood as a general rule even then I can enjoy fried blue cod or hoki on occasion.
Bit of a shame since I grew up where you could eat lobsters, oysters, abalone etc off the rocks.
Non magical healer is a bit absurd, still don't hate it and the other warlord stuff/concept can be interesting.
Bit of a shame since I grew up where you could eat lobsters, oysters, abalone etc off the rocks.
Non magical healer is a bit absurd, still don't hate it and the other warlord stuff/concept can be interesting.
Last edited:
Garthanos
Arcadian Knight
A normal pet that doesn't get in the way interfering inconveniently and which is lucky enough to survive battle scenes or which does not run off too far when horrific monsters make the scene is a blessing but not a game resource.
One that acts like you are the Akela and joins your pack while following your lead about whom to attack and when to run still might get in the way and die easily... even if you have the skill to train and acquire another its a resource with somewhat realistic limits.
A step better than that is lucky enough not to die or occasionally sacrifice itself for you and in general participate while coordinating well with you and allies has become intimately part of the hero's story. They will talk about Paul Bunyan never without Babe.
Different grades I feel require different mechanisms.
G
Guest 6801328
Guest
Unlike Mystic, rapiers, drow, and some of the nuttier races, which I don't like for reasons mostly of flavor (and maybe some mechanical weirdness) the problem with Warlords is that they are, be definition and design, leaders. The whole concept is built around the idea that one member of the team isn't actually a peer, but is better than them. That the other characters are drawn to his/her leadership and charisma and knowledge.
Sure, there are a smattering of other abilities in the game that do this. But Warlord is an entire class built around the core concept of defining what other characters think of you. Leadership and respect are supposed to be earned over time, but the Warlord assumes you get it by choosing a character class.
And to ignore that, to pretend that fluff isn't there, is to stop roleplaying and play D&D like it's a boardgame. "I'll grant Elfcrusher my action." "Got it. I'll make a sneak attack. That does 23 damage."
Just the fact that nobody can come up with a really good alternative name...that the only name that seems to apply is one that connotes supremacy...should be an indication of something. (Somebody suggested "Commander". My point EXACTLY.)
And before anybody assumes that I'm simply edition warring (or defending hitpoints as meat, or fighting to stamp out martial powers, or whatever) I stopped playing D&D about the time 3rd edition came out, and came back during D&D Next. When I started asking on the forums, "Wait, what's this Warlord thing?" and people started describing it, the above was my reaction. It's not a smokescreen for ulterior motives.
Sure, but there are countless ways to create more interesting martial tactics without the fluff of Warlord. Start by designing abilities that affect monsters, not other PCs. Want to grant somebody an attack? Have an ability that forces a monster to trigger opportunity attacks.
Tales and Chronicles
Jewel of the North, formerly know as vincegetorix
I use a completely different thematic for the mechanics of warlord. My ''warlord-y'' class is called the Companion. I often found that the idea that nobody would want to play the helper, the loyal friend or trusty sidekick to be false. I guessed that I'm probably not alone in wanting to play in the role of Samwise Gamgee, the resilient, loyal, helpful companion of more ''martial'' characters, but still as heroic as the rest of them. Its a class with a little more emphasis on the social and exploration pillars than you would expect a regular warlord, but it still has some battle application.
I stole some features from AiME's Warden, Treasure Hunter and Scholar.
I have three archetypes for now:
The Scrivener (Magic archetype specialized in ritual casting)
The Bounder (martial defender)
The Healer
