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: 8309103" data-attributes="member: 7015698">I was gonna mention Seeker and Rune Priest, but then I remember those were doubling down on combination already covered... The Battlemind was pushing it too. By PHB3 they really were reaching for some more content... But the races were great! Warden was a Primal Defender and it was awesome! Lots of cool self-transformation, lots of plant flavor, and they made the ground around them difficult terrain! They could use either CON or WIS as AC stat so you could have a really solid guy, or a wise warrior in tune with nature.That said, I think you could do the same concept in 5e with a Barbarian subclass that gains special transformations when they Rage, since the Warden's forms were dailies. It's a bit Beast Barbarian but it was more Shamanic with forms such as 'Form of the Winter Herald', 'Form of the Thunderbird', 'Form of the Laughing Killer' and so forth and not just "you get claws". I worked on that concept for a while so maybe I should revisit it? I'd probably do it as basically replacement for the basic Rage features, otherwise it would be too strong... So you can pick your standard Rage or your special rages depending on the situation.Your fighter is already a dum-dum. If you try to make a class that can be everything you end up with the 5e Monk. Limiting the roles of a class in the first release makes it easier for you to know what you can break when you expand the class later. You basically place barriers just to see where people will run into them so you know where to make holes in your barriers. The other barriers are still there, but since people can just go through the holes they don' t notice.  I guess we don't need a Wizard if we have the Eldritch Knight? A lot of people seem to forget the 'elite warrior' part of the Fighter. For a lot of people, the Fighter taking their attack action is the 'baseline' competency in combat. Isn't it weird? To me, at least, the baseline should be the Valor Bard swinging a sword or the Rogue without Sneak Attack. I'm totally fine with a 5e Warlord having little to do, mechanically, with the 4e Warlord, as long they can support their allies and do it every turn if they so wish.On the subject of Beastmaster, I've been saying for a while that there should just be a 'Beast' class and the player who wants to play a Beastmaster just brings the Beast PC along and controls both. Then the DM just adjusts their encounter in the same way they would if another player had joined the group. Then, you give the Ranger and/or Fighter special features that make teamup maneuvers possible and make the Beast PC also give bonuses in similar circumstances so they have synergy but not all of the main PC's subclass features need to be dedicated to balancing the sidekick.</blockquote>

Verification