Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 8308009" data-attributes="member: 87792">This was one of the criticisms of 4e. Yet most fighters could trash most warlords one on one in melee and everyone knew it. But because the warlord was a warlord they could contribute other things than walking up to the enemy and smacking them round the head.But when your fluff is not fit for purpose and your mechanics are not fit for purpose why do you think what you are offering is anything other than a demonstration that you don't understand the appeal to the class?And they are still casting spells with all that implies. What you are saying is that two different types of spellcasters with overlapping spell lists are pretty similar. Which, duh, yes.The warlord is not a spellcaster by default any more than the rogue, monk, barbarian, or fighter are. Some may cast spells, just as there are eldritch knights and arcane tricksters.&nbsp; But warlording is fundamentally not about casting spells and any attempt to say &quot;casters exist and you can do a lot with magic therefore you have a warlord&quot; is a failure.And that reason is mostly because monster balancing is fiddly enough already.Edit: And I don't need to add anything to the sorcerer discussion. A warlock-type chassis with short rest spells and magical stuff they can Just Do would feel more like the sorcerer fluff than the current metamagic &quot;has more control over their spells than a wizard but no versatility&quot;. You could also add far more twists to warlock invocations to make them feel like dark bargains; I like that they feel different from wizards but there should be far more double edged ones.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 8308009, member: 87792"] This was one of the criticisms of 4e. Yet most fighters could trash most warlords one on one in melee and everyone knew it. But because the warlord was a warlord they could contribute other things than walking up to the enemy and smacking them round the head. But when your fluff is not fit for purpose [I]and[/I] your mechanics are not fit for purpose why do you think what you are offering is anything other than a demonstration that you don't understand the appeal to the class? And they are still casting spells with all that implies. What you are saying is that two different types of spellcasters with overlapping spell lists are pretty similar. Which, duh, yes. The warlord is not a spellcaster by default any more than the rogue, monk, barbarian, or fighter are. Some may cast spells, just as there are eldritch knights and arcane tricksters. But warlording is fundamentally not about casting spells and any attempt to say "casters exist and you can do a lot with magic therefore you have a warlord" is a failure. And that reason is mostly because monster balancing is fiddly enough already. Edit: And I don't need to add anything to the sorcerer discussion. A warlock-type chassis with short rest spells and magical stuff they can Just Do would feel more like the sorcerer fluff than the current metamagic "has more control over their spells than a wizard but no versatility". You could also add far more twists to warlock invocations to make them feel like dark bargains; I like that they feel different from wizards but there should be far more double edged ones. [/QUOTE]

Verification