Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Urriak Uruk" data-source="post: 7885634" data-attributes="member: 7015558">That's a fair POV. Personally, I'm not fond of the idea of new options for players always being a net positive, even when those options aren't broken. I think the new options should have a purpose within the framework of what D&amp;D 5e is. I know you believe this is &quot;gatekeeping&quot; but D&amp;D is a rule-based game, so unless you're explicitly expanding what D&amp;D 5e actually is (and I'll get to how you can do that), you work within the framework.I think the typical warlord does fit in 5e, but that it really should be a singular class but instead split up into several subclasses for the other classes. Because I think the idea of an inspiration fighter can also be an inspiration wizard, an inspiration rogue, etc.I think the Lazylord doesn't match 5e play (currently), but that with additional rules like larger-scale combat, sieges, more war-like elements, it's inclusion is much more logical.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Urriak Uruk, post: 7885634, member: 7015558"] That's a fair POV. Personally, I'm not fond of the idea of new options for players always being a net positive, even when those options aren't broken. I think the new options should have a purpose within the framework of what D&D 5e is. I know you believe this is "gatekeeping" but D&D is a rule-based game, so unless you're explicitly expanding what D&D 5e actually is (and I'll get to how you can do that), you work within the framework. I think the typical warlord does fit in 5e, but that it really should be a singular class but instead split up into several subclasses for the other classes. Because I think the idea of an inspiration fighter can also be an inspiration wizard, an inspiration rogue, etc. I think the Lazylord doesn't match 5e play (currently), but that with additional rules like larger-scale combat, sieges, more war-like elements, it's inclusion is much more logical. [/QUOTE]

Verification