NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dualazi" data-source="post: 7369452" data-attributes="member: 6855537">IIRC if you are suffering a lost limb it still requires a Regenerate spell or similar effect to cure, which is more of what I was getting at to differentiate it from a generic HP restoring option like cure wounds.Short rest abilities are fine, the problem is twofold:1) your example abilities are very weak for the most part, and do not scale in any way enough to be comparable to the other poster child for short rests, the warlock.2) Once those abilities are expended, you're back to being a fighter. When a warlock runs out of spells, he's still a warlock. He still has the invocations, pact magics, pact boons etc. that set him apart from other classes mechanically. There's no space for any of those type of options or differences when you have to contend with design space being taken up by the fighter's fighting style, or ASIs, or action surge.In my opinion short rest abilities/features have to be roughly half as good as long rest ones, probably closer to 60%. Once they're depleted, you still need something to make your class distinctive, like the warlock's pact magic and invocations. Really that goes for all classes though, a paladin or ranger still have abilities that set them apart besides their spells, but a subclass warlord is still ultimately a fighter. Hopefully this helps articulate the point better that I'm not opposed to short rest mechanics, but the weak implementation therein.Which I'm totally game for, it just seems that mearls and many others don't accept that possibility, because they keep giving them shallow do-nothing abilities and trying to cram it into the fighter chassis.Just to clarify, you're saying you think there aren't enough abilities to merit the warlord being its own class? Not sure I buy that if so.You do not. The Bard, Barbarian, and Ranger off the top of my head all launched with 2 subclasses. Saying that the warlord can't do the same because the other classes now have expanded material is a bit disingenuous, but I don't think that's what you were going for to be fair.Tactical, Bravura, and Inspiring are all different archetypes that can play and narratively present a broad range of story options. Some of the past options like resourceful might also be included if you swapped their focus to a more skill or exploration focused path.As mellored said, action granting was something they could do at the start, and many of the best rated powers from the optimization side of things were centered around that concept. While I mostly agree with the balance argument, class balance itself has always been somewhat shaky in 5e and I would rather they focus their efforts on being evocative and unique at this point. A great example I think of this is the pacifist paladin option in Xanathars. I think that subclass is crap, because it doesn't do enough to change how the paladin plays to fit its supposed narrative space, and was even trimmed down from its playtest version. I'd rather have a less-balanced option that more accurately represents the concept and changes the playstyle of the paladin than a few ribbon abilities that don't amount to much, and same thing for the warlord. They were willing to experiment with that ridiculously OP Lore Wizard, how about Mearls tosses out an overpowered warlock and we can try walking it back for once.</blockquote>

Verification