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: 7373976" data-attributes="member: 996">Nod, same with tactics.  That's why the dividing line among sub-classes should be emphasis and greater facility with certain sorts of gambits to support the concept, rather than having specific mechanics to justify the concept.Every warlord will be able to come up with a tactical plan, inspire his allies, and do so from the front lines or the back.  Some will be particularly good at tactics or inspiration, some will be particularly good at leading from the front, regardless of whether it's to inspire or execute a cunning plan.  And, some, like the Artillerist or Icon ('Lazy') better served doing either from the back lines.  Nod.  That works.  I kinda like the idea of different Gambits keying off different stats, in addition to specific sub-classes having advantages when using certain types of gambits.  I'm also starting to think adding a mental stat to weapon attacks might not be a bad idea, but with limitations. Not replacing STR/DEX with INT/CHA but supplementing it.  I'm thinking the Warlord might evoke the concept better if it was MADder than the 4e version - maybe even MAD as hell.  <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=";)" /> Nod.  It's a balancing of 'immersive feel' and actually modeling the character.  You could just play a fighter (or a kobold, or telepathic paperweight) and kibitz at your fellow players with tactical plans - you'd have to be really good at it, your DM would have to recognize your genius rather than just making your plans fail arbitrarily, and it'd still be annoying as heck for everyone else at the table.  Or, you could just play a 3.0 Bard with no spells and give everyone a bland bonus for just standing where they can hear you.  In between those distant extremes, any number of potential Warlord implementations might be found. Yeah, it doesn't seem it'd be a tough thing to do, but it wasn't done right off the bat, even though TotM is the nominal default.  Probably an oversight (I mean, it couldn't be that Mearls is trapped in the thinking "well, 4e used squares, so the Warlord just has to use squares.")</blockquote>

Verification