Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6660139" data-attributes="member: 996">That's a defeatist attitude.  Without the 'power' mechanic, other classes that had powers in 4e have many /more/ options in 5e.  Clearly, nothing about 5e not standardizing on a power-style format restricts the options available to a class.  If anything, it blows the doors off by comparison.It's not the worst option, only because some have suggested re-skinning Bards or Clerics.  It is, however, a very bad option.  The Fighter class is deeply committed to high DPR, which is not nearly as important to the Warlord as "leader" style functionality & a wide range of tactical options.  It makes about as much sense as replacing the Druid with a Barbarian sub-class.It really isn't, not even close.   At least you didn't try to pretend that a feat is a class or a bard is martial... There's just too little 'space' in a Fighter archetype.  The fighter's high-DPR multi-attacking design is problematic, to begin with, doubly so with even the Battlemaster's very few and minor 'rider' effects in the form of maneuvers that stack on top of attacks.   It would take a more dramatic re-working of the base class than we've seen in a sub-class or archetype, so far.  The fighter's multiple attacks would have to either go or be re-purposed in a way more consistent with the concept.  The battlemaster would be a bad starting point, because it is so constrained by that hard-coded high-DPR multi-attacking base design.  A number of post back, before the whole digression about specific genre characters, I started riffing on such a possibility, to make, not really a Warlord in the fully-reallized 4e sense, but something more like the 13th Age Commander (much narrower in concept).  In short, it would trade in the flurry of attacks to issue Commands that let allies take specific very specific actions on the Commander's turn, as a Reaction (which'd hopefully limit the action-economy devastation that converting attacks to actions might otherwise cause)....For a 'real' Warlord, though, a full class is what's called for.  It's analogous to the Awakened Mystic we just saw.  A new class is the best way to go.  They could have said, "oh, you already have a psion: it's the GOO Warlock, he even has Telepathy!" (as ridiculous as passing off a Bard or Battlemaster s a warlord)  or "Oh, here's a Sorcerer 'Psionic Talent' Origin, with a few new psionicky spells, we're done" (about what this thread's trying to do - better than nothing, but far from adequate).  While those approaches would have been consistent with 5e design by definition (since they add nothing), they would have failed to capture the psion concept, and probably really disappointed fans of psionics.  Though the Awakened Mystic is yet another variation rather than a clear callback to any one of the several versions of psionics we've had in the last 40 years, it doesn't immediately scream "this isn't really a Psion," the way restricting it to a handful of powers ("because we don't have powers anymore") would have been.</blockquote>

Verification