Search results

This is actually pretty simple to change. I've shown the work. Components and effects that interact with magic and even damage types (though I didn't include those) are not exactly load bearing. This can be embedded into an alternative class feature pretty easily. Let's take my Martial Exploits...

I'd personally be really into making a few warlord "spells" for bards and paladins especially. :)

Making martial characters more like spellcasters has been an idea that got a lot of traction in late 3e, which laid the groundwork for what happened in 4e. As you point out, "everyone was a caster." There's a few really good reasons 5e didn't go with this. For instance, one of the issues that...

In the tradition of warlord conversations not being about the warlord, this is a conversation about why 5e might be reluctant to officially add classes, and there are reasons for that beyond "Make warlord fans suffer." This is actually the SAME conversation that the psion fans want to have.

The overall point is that warlord conversations go around in circles because they're not really about warlords, they're about other things. It's actually relatively trivial, and I could see it happening, but there's some good reasons why it might not, partially related to some issues some...

They don't, but if what you really want deep down is for martials to have powers that are equal to spells again, you're not talking about the Warlord, you're talking about 5e's choice to not open the can of worms that is martial dailies. Mechanically, this is a fix: ========================...

A big reason warlord discussions often fail to go anywhere is that the warlord is, in some cases, just a shibboleth for "I prefer how 4e did things." So, the convo just becomes grousing about how 5e doesn't have 4e's model of martial powers, or how 5e doesn't officially support a purely morale...

The distinction I'm making is between playing a game where I play a writer, and playing a game where I play a character. These are distinct methods of play, with different kinds of fun in them. When I play D&D, I want to play a character - for me, ROLE PLAYING suggests that element of it, and...

Sure. And nonmagical butt-whooping is currently supported and could be supported further.

Being a protagonist isn't something that exists in reality, so yes, being fictional is inherently beyond natural. I guess it's kind of an open question if "natural" is the kind of thing we want to work towards. I'm a fan of diegetic explanations for remarkable abilities. "Being a protagonist"...

Roll 1d6 for my response. I like them. I like them quite a bit. I think some of the best moments of any game I've played have come about because of random rolls. I believe significant randomness is inherent to the enjoyment of TTRPGs in general because it increases tension and produces...

Maybe she doesn't think that the problem has been solved by Fate at all, actually? Like, just because you like a mechanic, doesn't mean everyone else has to like it.

Everything is a remix. Creativity is recycling. There is nothing truly new under the sun. IP is a prison holding back the creativity of generations. Etc.

I'm generally on board with the idea that we could add some subclasses for things like this. There's parallels that get close to these ideas, but sometimes it's just nice noting it on your character sheet and making it your schtick and that's all well and good. But, I don't think the Fighter or...

I think skills are barking up the wrong tree. Skills in D&D aren't really load-bearing weights for defining archetypal abilities, they're a specialized group of ability checks, and I don't think they need to be inflated in importance. We have a method for defining archetypal abilities, and that...

Oooh! I want this! Or, more specifically, I want martial characters to be able to do things like this. I have zero issue with a "warrior of the grave" who can speak with the dead or a "knight of fate" who can see the future. If our concept of Fighter is limited to "hit things good," then our...

One of the weirdest things to me in D&D is this kind of cultural bias against having martial characters (especially fighters and rogues) be inherently magical, in the sense that they have clearly supernatural powers that are clearly not of the common world. Like, I can't give my Fighter healing...

My setting at the moment is explicitly Christian, though it's borked and cursed, so that doesn't really matter to the daily lives of the people very much. Cleric spells don't really come from the Literal Christian God as much as they come from the holy objects the priests use, which are more...

It's like I always tell The Ladies: Finishing is overrated. I really like the WotC anthologies. Radiant Citadel was a very good and very fun. And I think one of the big mistakes of the setting books for Spelljammer, Planescape, and Dragonlance was in doing One Big Adventure instead of like a...

Also the Fighter, but y'all ain't ready for that realness. ;) Look, every class is optional. You only need as many classes as you want to need. IMO, the sorcerer is fine as the "inborn magic" character (vs. the wizard as a more "studied magic" character). I like the vibe of "I got my magic...