Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ZombieRoboNinja" data-source="post: 6015575" data-attributes="member: 54843">I see your point. Here's the rub: in 5e, each class clearly has one primary attribute that they use for all their attacks, spells, etc. This is, IMO, actually a great system for reducing munchkinism: as long as you put your best score in your class's primary attribute, you can shift around your other attributes to fit your character concept without screwing yourself over in unexpected ways. (For example, you can play a grumpy, ugly cleric without inexplicably being bad at turning undead, and you can play a strong but clumsy fighter without taking a penalty to AC until you're high enough level to afford plate.)The only exceptions are the class builds with what we could call (in 4e terms) hybrid roles: the war cleric and the draconic sorcerer, who use Wis or Cha for spells and Str for attacks. But there clearly are (or in the case of the sorcerer will be) more straightforward builds for those classes that rely on one primary stat.I agree that Strength should not be the warlord's primary attribute. It should be either Int or Cha. But at the same time, I don't want the warlord to feel screwed over in ways other classes aren't. I want to be able to play an unpleasant but brilliant tactician without sucking. This requires some work.I agree; the current system is a bit of a kludge. Int has very little impact between maybe level 3 and level 10.This is the other thing I'm worried about.I'm not sure I agree that the warlord doesn't care about hitting things, or that bounded accuracy alleviates the problem. (I'd say the opposite: because there is such a narrow range of expected attack bonuses, every little bit is that much more important. In 3e you could sort of make up for a crappy Strength with Weapon Focus or something; no such "luck" in 5e.)And again, I don't like having both Int AND Cha as required stats, because (1) no other 5e class requires THREE decent stats and (2) I think a low-Cha warlord should be viable. I'd also like a warlord with a mediocre Int and great Cha to be viable, but since the bard and/or paladin can fill the role of "inspirational team player," I'd give that up before the tactical side.I'll think through some possibilities in the next post.</blockquote>

Verification