Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Marandahir" data-source="post: 6770840" data-attributes="member: 6803643">I still only see them via the link to your website.I like Warmain. I do worry that it's only useful if one has En5ider. Since I have En5ider, I like the mechanics, and might like it enough to steal from it. The others are too mechanically specific for my tastes. That many maneuvers that are specific to the subclass might seem alright on paper, when the Battle Master has a bunch of specific maneuvers, but there's a feat to get some maneuverability and several variant classes out there that drop a feature to gain those BM maneuvers. These, on the other hand, are a host abilities entirely unique to one build of one class. That's even more specific than the class-specific powers of 4e. One of the great innovations of 5e was allowing shared resources between classes. If something worked fine to cover a concept over here that would cover the same concept over there, it was shared. Now, I'm not going to tell you what to do. I just think that many of these are too mechanically distinct. At a certain point, you begin to run the risk of being wildly variant due to so many moving parts. You also begin to seem like you're reinventing the wheel, at which point the D&D structure might not be the best format for it anymore. For example, I think a Hexblade is just fine as a Pact of the Blade Warlock. Certainly that was the intention of WotC. I also think it would be quite nice and fine to create a warlocky-fighter. Certainly the Eldritch Knight FIghter and Bladesinger Wizard show you can approach concepts from different directions (War Domain Cleric and Paladin do that too, as do Assassin Thief and Way of Shadow Monk). But the question should always be, in my mind, how necessary is this homebrew? Can I do the character in another way and still capture the feel? I'll give an example of what I'd call necessary homebrew. In En5ider048, we have the Druid subclass, the Circle of the World. While at first the idea of a weapon-based Druid seems to be an odd idea, it's worth remembering the spells we got in the Elemental Evil Player's Companion – the Investiture spells, to be specific. These spells are quite beautiful renditions of the Warden's Guardian Forms from 4th Edition. However, neither of the two classes that seem to have picked up a bit of the slack of the Warden – the Oath of the Ancients Paladin and the Ranger in general – have access to 6th-level spells. Clearly, the concept needed one more approach at it. One way would be to make lower-level investiture-like spells. I had toyed with this for months, honestly, without thinking of this other, more elegant solution. Wardens are a Circle of Druid. It even makes sense – Wardens gather in Warding Circles. So when exploring concepts like Gladiators or Duelists, it's always worth thinking, "how many times has this approach been taken before?" And "would one of these other ways work better?" And "is there a more elegant way to homebrew this archetype?" Simpler is almost always better. One of the best things about 5e is the relative lack of options paralysis bogging down the game.</blockquote>

Verification