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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Undrave" data-source="post: 8308008" data-attributes="member: 7015698">I know, I was just teasing. But it's clear to me that, for you and many other, the mechanical difference between a Sorcerer and a Wizard are thematically strong enough to make them feel different, but looking at this comment from later: You can't see the thematic difference between two warriors with vastly different combat focus. I guess it's fair. Let me put this another way, if the Fighter and Warlord are to be a single class, I would rather see the WARLORD be the dominant idea, regardless of class name, than the limited 5e Fighter. I think it would help make the Fighter a stronger thematic class if it regained its 'mundane leader of men' theming from the days where it would get a keep and followers. Keep the striker subclasses, and the Eldtrich Knight, but have more room in the core class for support option. What if the Fighter had a basic 5 ft aura as a core class feature that could (as a class feature pick) either make allies within it harder to hit (say, if you're holding a shield) or make enemies within in easier to hit? What if the Fighter had a 'dress wound' ability that lets them make short rest more effective? (i.e. you let X amount of party member maximize the HD they spend) Maybe, at higher level, it can train people to use weapons, like he can grant weapon proficiency to NPCs to train up a militia... Basically, the 5e Fighter feels like it's designed to be the Champion first, and the Battlemaster or Banneret second, and I'd rather see that be flipped if we can't have a separate Warlord. And let's leave the 'dumb Fighter' trope behind and give them some skills other than meathead ones and give them some stuff to do with them! You could still play a lunkhead Fighter, but you'd have options not to! You don't need to be 'thematically useless', you just need to be useful in DIFFERENT WAYS than the usual "I smash his face/stab his guts/blast his face" standards. Just because a character can't hit hard doesn't mean their in-universe companion wouldn't be able to appreciate their contribution.It's been explained but for lots of reasons, nobody plays 4e. And I will admit, 4e had cool ideas but it gets unwieldy at high level. Once you get past your second Encounter power you start to have too many things to track... I'm generally fine with 5e, there's just a few things I wish it did better (support characters are REALLY underwhelming. The Cleric is boring. Martials are too limited). I completely disagree with your assessment. I agree with Longinus, the Sorcerer is really bland and uninteresting. That OPness however was totally dependant on the party. It wasn't that the Warlord themselves were better than everybody, they just made the whole PARTY better. A Warlord on their own weren't as good as ,say, a Ranger, but a Warlord and a Ranger were (often) better than two Rangers. The Warlord wasn't OP, they were a force multiplier. I too like the CHA one better, and I liked the STR/CHA Cleric in 4e that got dropped like a hot rock passed the PHB, but the INT Warlord is one that really got people excited for a smart Martial character that didn't dump INT. When making my own Warlord class I had way more ideas for CHA subclasses to the point I had to stop myself <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /> I feel like the Sorcerer using magic should have more of an impact on their body. They're using power from within and I think it should impact them if they put too much strain on their magic. Sorcerers should be more like Magical Berserker Barbarian, able to trade exhaustion (or HD) for stronger effect. They should be able to control raw magical energy and either shoot it as a basic blasting attack or enhance their body without a specific 'spell' (just some class feature). I also really like the play test idea I heard about where the more they used sorcery points the more their ancestry manifested (like, they got more Dragons). Also, Wild Magic is garbage. It should have had a push your luck mechanic where you can choose to gain a benefit at the cost of rolling on the random table instead of depending on the DM. The Warlord is basically 4e's mascot. I can totally see them deciding not to work it into 5e (and really, if they were including it from the ground up they would TOTALLY have been able to make it work mechanically, regardless of what naysayers like Asisreo think. Just keeping Healing Surges would have given the Warlord tons to do) for fear it would trigger the grognard rage. And I admit, as someone who liked 4e, it would feel validating to see a 5e Warlord. It would be like the designers saying "your taste were VALID." instead of feeling like they're going out of their way to act like 4e never existed (despite all the stolen elements) and that we were somehow totally wrong for liking it...</blockquote>

Verification