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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Zardnaar" data-source="post: 7381603" data-attributes="member: 6716779">Noble 2.0 and it allows spellcasting so yeah its a very bad idea. Go down that path you end up with the same thing the noble has. In the right party it out right broken in the wrong party your class sucks.That is not good class design even the worst classes in 5E are still ok at worst assuming the player doesn't pumpkin it up. Stick that in a party with say a warlock, ranger (archer, Rogue) and a Paladin in it and you are basically giving up your pathetic attack and can switch between letting the warlock cast eldritch blast, the Rogue and the Ranger potentially with the -5/+10 feat two of them with hex/hunters quarry.  As discussed earlier a level 10 Sorcerer built entirely around spamming haste can't do that and haste is limited, has a downside and can be interrupted.  Change the party makeup and you have a pumpkin PC that can't really do much.  That is basically the problem with the EN5ider Noble among other things. 5E rewards min/maxing the party more than the individual already. For example multiple spellcaster to get around concentration, buffers to offset the -5/+10 feats, haste+ big hitter etc. At this point people are just insisting on a 4E mechanic because it was in 4E and not good game design and even in 4E is was an option only, not a core part of the warlord class. And some players more or less figured out the lazy lord which from the sounds of it was not an intended build in 4E.</blockquote>

Verification