Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 7559095" data-attributes="member: 82106">Yeah, I like 4e combat, except I wanted to tweak things a LITTLE bit, such that you could fight fewer tougher monsters, or more less tough monsters in a bit more flexible way than in 4e. That when you do unleash the big capstone move that it doesn't foof. I wanted a few less twiddly power uses and more meaty ones. So I did tweak things a bit <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hDqxN9WDlPUruYUIuDZo1YJcMcEqMSLm/view?usp=sharing" target="_blank">https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hDqxN9WDlPUruYUIuDZo1YJcMcEqMSLm/view?usp=sharing</a> in HoML. Feel free to rip things off, I put an OGL on it for good measure a while back too.I don't really agree in the long run. These classes are not as thematically strong as the ones in the PHB1 which are rock solid sure of themselves in their role. If you want a different role with a basically similar class, then make a new class! If you want to share power lists, then do so, make them source-based or whatever (HoML has powers derived mostly from 'boons' which are sort of like mini bits of class which you can simply accumulate to make what you want on top of your base class). It also has some 'source powers'. There are TONS of class concepts out there, more than enough to go around, particularly if you avoid such 'kitchen sink' designs as 'Wizard' and 'Fighter' in favor of somewhat thematically tighter classes. Yes, you could do this all with 'kits', 'themes', 'sub-classes', 'builds', etc. I just tired of the madness and flattened the whole thing down to "this class does X" and if you don't like X, then be something else! Given how little is fixed to class irrevocably in HoML it really isn't an issue like it was in AD&D. Nor is it the monstrous pain to make a new class that it was in 4e.Never liked this idea, it is too limiting. Control is not just 'artillery', which in fact I would consider a flavor of striking in general (though its certainly true that a lot of area attacks will attain a degree of 'denial' based control).I don't particularly see the specific 12 of 5e to be especially canonical, and I have no intention of doing without my warlords <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />. Still, 4e has a LOT of classes, and then they have builds, themes, PP and ED on top of that, which is a HECK of a lot of variety. I have probably equal variety, and a bit more than 12 classes, but not much more (and honestly many have not been fleshed out sufficiently to play in HoML yet). Its enough though with the shared power lists per source and powers mostly coming from boons which are not strictly bound to a specific class.I didn't really see the point. I mean, maybe in 4e proper that might have been a decent 'PR' move, but I doubt it would have saved 4e and might have lead to a more awkward design. In HoML I wouldn't see a point, it is NOT D&D, so why cater to sacred cows of bygone editions?I'm in favor of the A/E/D/U style of having a fixed set of slots everyone adheres to. It is a great leveler and design constraint which makes things 'just work'. Well, I like my ideas best, so stick with them! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> hehe.</blockquote>

Verification