Search results

Wizards are already superheroic. The problem is that if you want to be a superheroic character you have to limit yourself to playing casters. You can have your grounded martials if we can have our super heroic martials. Except, of course, you would argue very hard against adding properly...

Conan is a low level concept.

This shows that you simply cannot have a system where you have "mundane" characters who are expected to reach high levels. And with "mundane" here I mean characters who have to adhere to "earth human" levels of realism. What exactly can such a character do that they are worth having in a group...

I am fine with calling anything "unrealistic" that happens in this setting magic I am not fine with calling that thing magic if a requirement of me calling it magical is that I must accept that the thing is subjected to whatever rules there are in the setting that governs magic. That is: If we...

That depends on what your intent is with arguing that it is magic. I am fine calling whatever magic, if magic is used as to label something that isn't realistic. I am willing to say that an exceptional ability to jump is "magical". But if your intent with trying to make me argue that it is...

No one in our reality has magic either.

Is everyone in here talking about different things using the same label? I think it should be completely the other way around. In 3.0 and 3.5 and PF1 there are a few unified systems: Feats and spells. Any character using anything else has to use a separate subsystem. There's the psionic...

I think that Pathfinder 2E is at its core is better designed than D&D 5E. 2E provides a fairly stable framework to create new systems and options for, something that 5E doesn't really do. For example there are only two systems in 5E. Spell casting and skills. There is no unified system like...

They might not care. They might also be reasoning that the new version of 5E will not be too attention grabbing and that they hope that there will be discourse over 5.2E and alternatives and that that discourse will benefit them.

That's probably why Paizo calls it the Commander instead too. Warlord isn't a well chosen name.

This seems like the wrong kind of warlord. Notice that no example characters in that article (as far as I can see anyway) match the class description of the warlord. Look under tabletop games and you'll see what I mean. They don't list the D&D 4E warlord, but they list the Hardholder from...

There's a system designed by designer John Wick (nothing to do with the movies) which works like that. The GM says something like "your mission is to rescue these hostages" and the characters plan the operation and their plan guides the resulting mission.

Everything bolded is basically an issue of taste The problem is that it is still magic. You can't flavour the magic away, because healing word and whatever things you would reflavour would still not work in an anti magic and they can still be countered by counterspell. If that part could be...

Where was the character sheet posted?

A: Dice increases damage, and damage is irrelevant for a Warlord. Which is the point of this discussion. It doesn't matter if damage scales. Sure some maneuvers actually benefit from this like the one that boost AC, and that is cool. B: This is a quantity issue. C: Is this some new feature...

I'm not really seeing any whining tbqh. I'm seeing some people saying "plz add this thing" and other people saying "we have this already" or "we don't need this" or "we don't want this". This thread is proof of it. I don't even care about the darned class myself. It's just baffling to me that...

The battle master is among the best fighter sub classes for sure, but far from the best subclass in the game. I will not repeat my reply up here, so see below in this post: That's exactly what I mean! The fighter scales based on number of attacks and attack power. That's why I mentioned that...

I find this absolute resistance to the Warlord class very interesting. The class itself is conceptually uninteresting to me, but I can imagine people want it. Especially since PF2 is just play testing their own attempt at this class. I really don't understand the hostility to a D&D implementation.

The fact that they don't scale. Battle master maneuvers are problematic because they don't scale properly. The fighter as a concept is designed with a primary focus on their attacks scaling. They have the fastest multiple attack scaling after all. "Why don't maneuvers scale?" you ask. Because...

The lack of classes and class options in 5E kinda sucks.