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: 7374025" data-attributes="member: 996">Except not unique in some fairly major ways.  A Storm Sorcerer and Dragon Sorcerer might still no the exact same spells.  A Mastermind Rogue is still using SA for some nasty DPR. Much more plausible given how 5e handles sub-classes.  They don't usually radically re-write a class. Specialization, unquestionably.  Take the tactical warlord, for instance, the tactical demands of a given situation might call for almost any gambit, if he had 'opposition schools' like an old-timey 2e wizard, he'd be unable to use certain battle plans just because they required he be even a teeny bit inspiring or perceptive or whatever.   The Warlord'll need a lotta gambits, and any given warlord might conceivably use any of them - but, it's personal style & inclination, the doctrines it follows, and so forth might make it better suited to or better using some sub-set of them.   Meh, characters don't generally identify themselves as their class or their sub-class.  If they do - a PDK for instance - it's a darn good indicator that they should've been implemented as a PrC, instead!  ;P  I don't think it's a major decision.  The idea of choosing early is that it's something particularly defining - like a cleric wouldn't make a lot of sense not choosing his deity.   The Wizard, though, doesn't fit that idea, at all, the traditions aren't defining in that same way.  The level 3 threshold really ruins the fighter for a lot of sub-classes, including this one, because functionality that isn't in the fighter's very focused Tank chassis is delayed. I think the desire to include options like the Lazy warlord mean they have to be able to kick in from the beginning.  Combined with the idea of using gambits, at all, demanding a lot of flexibility in which gambit, when to make much sense at all (unlike spells that do something very specific and must be mastered or prepared, gambits can border on the improvisational, as well as be the execution of a careful plan). That'd be the only sensible way to go, really.  The class needs to have it's capability concentrated in flexible resources, those CS (or whatever he choses to call them) dice that modulate healing/damage/etc resources, and the situational Gambits that give them shape.  It's the approach and the facility with different sorts of gambits or different situations that draws mechanical lines among the various sub-classes, hopefully, in ways that can match the conceptual lines.But, yes, an inspiring warlord should certainly be able to help his allies execute a tactical plan, and a tactical warlord should be able to inspire his allies to carry though with a tough fight.   There's really not a 'must,' here. There's concepts that can be easily explained in terms of mechanics and those that owe there existence to mechanics of past editions.  The Dragon Sorcerer, for instance, owes the existence of it's concept to the introduction of spontaneous casting into 3.0, the wizard traditions are nothing more but lingering echoes of the 2e specialist wizard, who, in turn, grew out of the division of spells into schools, which had minor mechanical effects in the game (detect magic could determine the type of magic, for instance).  That doesn't invalidate them.Don't get too hung up on chicken-and-egging concepts, if there's a good concept already out there, whether it was inspired by a mechanic like the Dragon Sorcerer (really, the whole class) or had a unique/problematic mechanic because of a cool concept that D&D choked on a bit, isn't that important.  What's important is there was this cool concept you could play, and now you can't, so let's fix that. <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=";)" />  It's not as controversial a question as the class itself.  Broadly, succinctly & metaphorically:  it's the guy on the team who helps his teammates be better together than apart.   More trees than forest, but yeah, that all fits, among other things. There's something like 330 to draw on, already.  Just say'n - 'starting with the concept' doesn't always have to mean re-inventing the wheel.(I wish I could find wrecan's old article, he did a good job breaking up warlord abilities into a few fairly cogent categories...)Which sorts of gambits they're better at, and in what ways - probably spread over a few features as they level.  And, if they do go with the Zone of Control or Overwatch mechanism, what sort of things happen there by default.  Oddly, self-sacrifice is also kinda the theme the Bravura - risky moves that put it in danger to help allies, but it's anything but weak.  Sounds like Tactical, but too general, really, more like an alternate name for the class, albeit, a bad one (it has been suggested). Too general, also.   Sub-set of what I wanted to do with Resourceful. Nod.  Well, I mean 'Crusader' is definitely a concept, and the other was a Paragon Path, so had as much concept/flavah text as a 5e class, but, ultimately, it's just an artifact of adapting a non-caster into 5e, and 5e's determination to make Multi-classing "Optional" while still supporting obvious MC builds.I'd've suggested Ardent as a 1/3rd psionic if they hadn't already used it in the Mystic.  <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=";)" /> I think you might be getting hung up on mechanics, yourself, with those four.  You're trying to group concepts together by how they might do things, mechanically, and, broadly, all warlords should be doing things, for the sake of design efficiency, with a common class-defined set of mechanics, perhaps by tapping certain daily resources (because, even if the Warlord in question chooses never to heal, 5e mandates healing be a daily resource, apparently), and funneling them through a given (situational) Gambit, focused around some Zone of Control (if we can't escape that).  The concepts can be more about the character, but will determine which gambits they do well, and how they mess with that general flow of mechanics, in support of that concept.This means two warlords may use the same gambit to do the same thing, but what's going on is quite different.  A tactical warlord who gives an ally an attack might be shouting a code-phrase that's part of the carefully-rehearsed battle plan, and the ally gets an attack bonus based on INT.  A bravura warlord doing so may be creating an opening with a reckless attack, and the ally gets advantage.  An inspiring warlord simply exhorting them to fight harder, and give a CHA bonus to damage.  Those sorts of things.    Or, an ally within a Zone of Control might get a different bonus depending on the sub-class/level of the warlord defining it.  I picture, for instance, Resourceful Warlords as taking advantage of terrain a lot - they're improvisational, that way, making use of things at hand - if there's a hazard in the zone of control, they might give their allies bonuses to avoid and their enemies penalties when their allies try to force them into it. There's not a lot of room, in sub-classes, for sub-sub-specializations.  But, I'm curious how you'd group the score or so of concepts posted just the last day or two under those 4, without making them about mechanics rather than concept, that is....</blockquote>

Verification