NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7042944" data-attributes="member: 996">Doesn't hurt that the Warlock is about as close as 4e comes to AEDU, I guess. <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=";)" />There are really a lot of potential sub-classes.  There's the 4e 'builds,' of course:  Inspiring, Tactical, Bravura, Resourceful, Skirmishing & Insightful.  There was also an archery option, but with 5e's seamless handling of STR v DEX weapon use that's a non-issue.  Then there was the CharOp LazyLord, and the more character-driven builds that could be done using it - in essence a non-combatant combatant, the kind of side-kick character that couldn't pull it's own weight, before, but was suddenly workable.  Inspiring is just what it says on the tin, the high-CHA 'leader' who helps everyone want to do better (and actually succeed at it, too).  It works conceptually just as well as a less combatant character as the Tactical does (if not better), but mechanically 4e Tactical builds did the 'lazylord' better.  It'd be nice if that didn't have to be the case, this time around.  Tactical was the INT-based build, less about inspiring word, more about setting allies up, so more buffing, granted actions and the like.  In 5e, the link to granted actions needn't be so solid (as above), and the objective of Tactics and strategy and gambits and manuevering and whatnot - to get the enemy to make mistakes - could be emphasized more, something that shaded too far over into the Controller Role to be a go in 4e.Resourceful.  A much cooler concept than the INT/CHA split-the-difference mechanics it got, the Resourceful Warlord is the reactive opportunist, who makes the most of every situation.  Again, could include things that were inapropriate to the Leader Role in 4e.Skirmishing:  all about movement, could probably be folded into Tactical unless it were maybe developed more in the lines of leveraging DEX options, light weapons/armor, stealth, mobility, good ranged attacks - not just for itself, but coordinating with allies using those tactics in one way or degree or another.Insightful:  Very poorly realized, IMHO, was meant to be a perceptive WIS-based build.  The concept makes a lot of sense, understanding the enemy is all-important, right?  This could be a more enemy-focused sub-class, less support, more de-buffing and strategems.Bravura:  Weirdest name, probably easiest to do in 5e since it was very fightery.  This is the guy who gets a combat style and Extra attack, maybe some sort of personal damage mitigation.  The Bladesinger to the Battlemaster's Eldritch Knight.And of course, there's the 'Princess' build, the non-combatant, the sidekick, the backseat adventurer.  <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 a fixture in genre, and can be cool or downright annoying to the audience, and helps at best infrequently or indirectly, mostly it instigates and give the heroes motivation to be heroic.  As a Warlord build, it'd be more mechanically pro-active, so it's contributing, and something for the player to do, but 'in the fiction,' it's the non-combatant (or plucky less capable combatant) the real heroes are sticking up for.  In 4e, you could CharOp a very effective LazyLord that way - in 5e, with less emphasis on balance, who know what build will be the OP one(s)?</blockquote>

Verification