Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7376035" data-attributes="member: 996">That /one/ specific Warlord sub-class concept - one way of looking at the Bravura (the other is as a reckless attacker who takes risk to create openings) - out of, what, 16 or so, above, would do with having a plausible claim on &quot;Best at Fighting&quot; (even at the same level) and thus might work as a fighter sub-class.&nbsp;&nbsp; ... hmm... I'm starting to like the idea of splitting the Bravura into a Fighter (Bravura) Fighter/Warlord faux-MC sub-class and a Warlord (Bravado) Warlord/Fighter faux-MC sub-class...&nbsp;Not really.&nbsp; D&amp;D traditionally gives daily resource high impact and great versatility, on return for nominally less frequent use.&nbsp; And that's exactly where gambits need to be:&nbsp; you don't pull a stunning tactical gambit every 6 seconds, they should be the kind of thing that happens in only some, more challenging or critical encounters, and make a real difference to them.Not that there aren't little things you can do every round, just that, like cantrips&nbsp; or ordinary attacks, there'll be less to them.&nbsp;Shared, obviously, support demands flexibility.&nbsp;Then you don't have to reduce the other warlordy stuff, you leave the distribution of the resource to the player, and the character performs better or worse as a result of that mamagement... like most classes.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7376035, member: 996"] That /one/ specific Warlord sub-class concept - one way of looking at the Bravura (the other is as a reckless attacker who takes risk to create openings) - out of, what, 16 or so, above, would do with having a plausible claim on "Best at Fighting" (even at the same level) and thus might work as a fighter sub-class. ... hmm... I'm starting to like the idea of splitting the Bravura into a Fighter (Bravura) Fighter/Warlord faux-MC sub-class and a Warlord (Bravado) Warlord/Fighter faux-MC sub-class... Not really. D&D traditionally gives daily resource high impact and great versatility, on return for nominally less frequent use. And that's exactly where gambits need to be: you don't pull a stunning tactical gambit every 6 seconds, they should be the kind of thing that happens in only some, more challenging or critical encounters, and make a real difference to them. Not that there aren't little things you can do every round, just that, like cantrips or ordinary attacks, there'll be less to them. Shared, obviously, support demands flexibility. Then you don't have to reduce the other warlordy stuff, you leave the distribution of the resource to the player, and the character performs better or worse as a result of that mamagement... like most classes. [/QUOTE]

Verification