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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7368480" data-attributes="member: 996">D&D isn't mainstream, and likely never will be.  Though, I suppose a D&D that didn't step into the minefield of vaguely promoting polytheism, and instead eschewed all mention of religion, just might have a better shot at going mainstream. :shrug:  Over the years, I've seen many players put off by the religious aspect of the Cleric and Paladin.  Moreso than put off by Demons & Devils, now that I think of it. It's clearly an idea in the earliest stages.  But I do find seeing the process interesting, and it is consistent with the kind of material we've seen from him over the years.  I've always felt like his stuff exudes a certain enthusiasm and a sense of improvisation, and I feel like I've seen where that comes from, now. Magic that's all protective isn't miscellaneous, it's protective.  Intent is significant in magic in a way it's not in physics.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />  Though I'm used to abjuration being protect or dispel, more than protect or restore.  'Abjure' means to reject.   And the Cleric or Bard, better still.  In the sense of spending a budget of spell-equivalency.  (Though, I's still a little surprised that's what he's working from.). Also, the alternate recharge scheme of the Warlock might be more useful as a touchstone... There's nothing 'supposedly' about it, 7 of them were in B&W, built right into the class options, and used certain exploits better than others.  The 8th, ironically, is probably the most-talked-about.  But, sure, in the sense that a hypothetical 1/3rd caster with a dozen 1st-3rd level spells, at least one of which came from each of 6 of the 8 schools would "touch on a lot of what the wizard brings to the table." I would characterize it as oddly, perhaps needlessly, complex.   I once ballparked the BM as representing about 3% of the Warlord, I might spot this attempt a few more percentage points.  Maybe even low double-digits - heck, if it's completed and the ultimate expression of the sub-class turns out to be just superlative, it might even rise to a 1/3rd Warlord in the sense the EK gets characterized as a 1/3rd-caster.  That'd be pretty sweet.  Even then, though, it'd just tick the Bravura box.  Because it is ultimately still a fighter, and the Bravura was the faux-fighter-MC 'build' that'd off-tank. Nod.  There seems to be a "expendable dice mechanic" being vaguely suggested.  Maybe it's in a black box, and, unlike the spell-slot/damage table, they haven't published it, or maybe it's just a matter of convergent designs suggesting a connection that isn't really there. :shrug:The use of dice you choose when to use up for some benefit based on the result of rolling that die seems to have cropped up several times.  Maybe I see it more because of MDD's in the first playtest having had several incarnations, and the playtest proficiency even having been a die for a bit.   CS dice are the obvious example, but there's also bardic inspiration and, of course, HD, in the PH.  The there's rolled but not expended dice-as-modifiers like bless/guidance.  Then there's re-rolls, like inspiration, and, taken proactively, even Adv/Dis, again.  If he does add these dice to another fighter sub-class, without just making them CS dice in some sense, that'd be yet another.  If they get used for a full class years down the road, then, just like CA consolidated multiple modifiers and modifier-negators into one simple bonus, and Adv/Dis eschewed modifiers almost altogether, all those uses of dice, almost like dice pools in some other games, might be ripe for simplification & consolidation. I'm glad to hear he gets to delegate something!  Since it is a fighter build that's apparently supposed to invest more in INT and/or CHA, letting it shore up the fighter's own attack rolls if he prioritizes one of those over STR or DEX doesn't sound like a bad idea.  So long as it doesn't lead to dumping STR like the 'lazy' build could (fine for that archetype, not plausible for a fighter sub-class). But, yeah, it seems to move in the opposite direction from the general idea, even of the Bravura.  Now keying buffs of INT or CHA, certainly.  'Tactical' <> 'grid dependence.'  That conflation has been going since the edition war, heck, since criticisms of 3.0 or maybe even C&T, for that matter (I kinda lost track of 2e around that time).  And, like I alluded to, above, complexity is something that has to be worth it, it's a side-effect you put up with to get where you want, not a goal in itself.So, yeah, a more complex design for a Warlord class?  Certainly.  Just not needlessly so.  Leverage as much as you can out of any added complexity.  And, really, that dovetails with adapting the class to 5e.There'd be less added complexity to the game, overall, for instance, if instead of creating entirely new sub-systems for yet another mutually-incompatible fighter sub-class, the Warlord class were done with Gambits (of which Maneuvers could be the Apprentice-tier sub-set) that used CS (or 'Inspiration') dice, in a ratio to the BM, comparable to the Full-Caster:EK ratio.</blockquote>

Verification