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: 7674933" data-attributes="member: 996">And the RAW are putty in the DM's hands. In 1e, 'Wizard' was an 11th level magic user, Warlock an 8th level one, and Sorcerer 9th.   Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Paladin, and Ranger all, either currently or in the past, denoted accomplishment, too.  'Druid' was a celtic high-priest who trained for something like 21 years to get on the first step to the title.  A Paladin was a Knight who served Charlemagne personally.  Today, an army Ranger is an elite special forces soldier.Implied achievement is absolutely a spurious objection.  Military rank, connotes command of a vessel.  Fatally narrow.  Also, just as much trouble with the bogus achievement rubric. ( Shouldn't your first level "Captain" be a middie?) I'll call it "hp restoration," but yes.  You've got to be able to stand the fallen (heck, there was a Warlord power called that).  The Warlord had something like 40 or 60 or so powers that restored hps.  It was a big part of the 4e implementation, too big to ignore, and it's a critically important function within the party.  A non-magical way of addressing that function also expands the range of campaigns and party types that the game can handle without extensive re-balancing, which is a very good thing, as well, and a nice bonus, really.Personally, I like the idea of the Warlord's in-combat hp-restoration triggering HD.  It's an established mechanic, and means he's not a 'band-aid,' like the Cleric, that extends the day with additional healing, just a facilitator who helps allies recover hps in combat, to get them back in the fight. The core, 'Standard' game is out. Those who wanted their anti-martial-whatever prejudices validated have that.  The Warlord should just be designed for fans of the class, who, by definition, are not going to have such reservations. There's quite a variety.  But it always depends on how you look at it.   You could look at all the blasting spells the wizard has and figure, well, gee, they all just do damage, and damage scales with slot, so let's just use Magic Missle, everything else can be cut to save space. There aren't a lot more battlemaster maneuvers you could create, because they have to be workable with a class that layers them on top of high DPR, and can choose any of them at 3rd level.  Imagine if the Warlock's spell list didn't include level, and he could just take any spell - could you put 9th or even 3rd level spells in that list when he could pick on at 1st level? No.  The battlemaster is profoundly limited, that way - the Warlord should be a more open design.One of the conundrums of re-designing the fighter or rogue or any non-magical class that might be compared with them is that they have both been traditionally under-powered or under-versatile or both, throughout the game's history.  Sure, you could probably take the 5e fighter, give it everything the 5e Rogue has, and everything the 4e Warlord had, and still have a class that wouldn't overshadow the Tier 1 casters.  But that doesn't mean it's a good idea.  Balance isn't important in 5e, and classic feel is, so the Warlord is going to have to be comparable to the Fighter & Rogue, and strictly inferior to casters like the Cleric. That's non-negotiable, obviously.Thus, yes, the Fighter's massive DPR has to go, to open up 'room' for the Warlord's abilities, conceptually.  Not because doing otherwise would break the game or make the Warlord wildly OP, but because doing it would obviate the Fighter."Actual healing" is the wrong word for it.  Restoring hps would be the in-game way to put it, inspiration, possibly the in-world-fiction way of expressing it.  But, yes, if you're down for the count, the warlord should be able to shout you awake. 3e Assassin, I thought, were all PrCs, no?  The 1e assassin had a slightly expanded weapon list, could use shields, could disguise himself, and make death attacks, but had fewer/lower 'Thief Special Abilities' - and a level limit. The 4e version went off the reservation and became a magic-wielding "Shadow" source striker.  It gloamed 'shrowds' onto the target to set up extra damage.  Pretty weird. I think a class with three or so sub-classes might be sufficient.As far as 5e having some kind of h4ter agenda that makes that impossible, I prefer not to speculate. Everything seems a pretty hard sell at this point.  They're putting out very little product, have almost no in-house development. The 5e design paradigm, though, does not set a high bar to creating a new class, technically.  Classes can vary wildly from eachother, introduce new subsystems, and the like, so there's really very little in the way - again, except, perhaps, fear of edition-war-level h4ter nerdrage.</blockquote>

Verification