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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 5996078" data-attributes="member: 2067">The first question I would ask is: why do these things need to be CS abilities? And the second question would be, if they do need to be CS abilities, why can't they be a combat style option for the fighter? And if they don't need to be CS abilities, what unique abilities might work better for the Warlord or Barbarian or Ranger class's schtick?Why can't the Warlord have those features? Fighters get all those + CS maneuvers. Why do you have to do that in order to hit the archetype of a combat commander? Can't you just have fighter who employs helpful CS maneuvers balanced with other CS maneuvers?I think other classes should get other spellcasting methods, too. Sorcerers and Warlocks are beginning that process already, and I'd encourage them to go father. I've pointed out that I don't think either one should need "spells," either, and I'd be entirely happy with a Channel Divinity-based cleric, leaving Vancian magic to be a Wizard-based thing.I'd question why, if making Warlord as a distinct class is a goal, you can't have some OTHER mechanic for them. There's no clear need for them to have CS. For instance, they could have an array of shouts that function as reactions and interrupts, allowing them to issue commands to their allies on the spur of the moment, correcting errors and setting up tactical maneuvers on the fly. For instance, if an ally is hit, there might be a warlord ability called Look Out! that imposes retroactive disadvantage on that attack, forcing the enemy to roll it again. Or whatever.I don't see a compelling case for suddenly extrapolating CS to everything that swings a hunk of metal around. I also don't see a compelling case for making everything that blasts sparkles to be Vancian. I do see a compelling case for ensuring each class has its own unique mechanics.</blockquote>

Verification