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="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 9168621" data-attributes="member: 7006">Not to get too deep into the weeds, because I've never actually played a 'Warlord' using the Bard chassis... but it all comes down to what I would find most important.If I really want to play a Warlord archetype in 5E... I will make do with whatever I have available to do so.  Whether that's a 3rd party class write-up... using the Battlemaster and take all the requisite abilities that the game gives to us right now to do it... or do any sort of re-fluffing if there are things I feel like would be important for my Warlord to have in the particular game I was playing.  In the latter case... if for example I was to be the only potential healer in the group then I'd probably want to refluff a Bard so that I'd have access to Cure Wounds and Healing Word so that we had those features available.  And that would mean stripping away the "magical healing" fluff and layering "inspiring ra-ra" healing instead.But you also have to remember who I am here-- I'm the yo-yo here on the boards that doesn't really give two craps about game mechanics... what matters to me is the story of the party and the adventure.  So I have absolutely zero concerns about re-fluffing, and any re-fluffing that doesn't match up 100% from the mechanic to the story I will happily handwave away.  Because once the mechanic has been used... it's the resultant story that came out of the mechanic's use that actually has import and is what we care about and remember.And this is absolutely something that most other people don't do, don't agree with, and argue with me about.  So I'm probably not the best person to try and come to an accord with on this issue.  <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=";)" />  Either you are with me on the idea that I don't need to try and explain away every single Bard feature and ability in a non-magical format otherwise the whole endeavor breaks down... or you can't handle the idea that yes indeed, it is theoretically possible that my DM could Counterspell my supposedly non-magical Warlord ability that uses the spell slot mechanic if that sort of "balancing metric" really mattered THAT MUCH to the DM that they'd still feel the need to do it.  (Even though in all likelihood the DM and I would have come to an easy accord way back during Session Zero where they agreed with my premise of just wiping all references to magic and spells off the Bard chassis to allow me to play my "Warlord", in which case the DM would never bother to dispel or counter my "non-magical" features to begin with.)</blockquote>

Verification