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="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6826073" data-attributes="member: 996">Oookay...A specific non-core addition and what it might accomplish...  Besides, inherent bonuses may not have been 'core' in 3e, but they were  'core' in 4e.  Options to enable low or no-magic, or all-martial play, yes.  5e could use many more such options.  The Warlord would be a great such addition.  A replacement for the Defender utility lost by the fighter, and the 'Martial Controller' and 5e would be not just caught up, but breaking new ground.  On that very narrow technicality, if you consider low/no magic items only, and thus /do/ allow PC casters in your 'low magic' campaign.  But, as I carefully pointed out, that's not what I was talking about. If you consider the broader sense of low/no-magic, and include few/limited/no PC casters, no, 5e's very nearly as bad at it as classic D&D, rising above it mainly due to the Short Rest HD mechanic scaled down from 4e.  How it stacks up to 3.5 is debatable:  3.5 without casters, but with items was just barely workable, so the all-martial party wasn't impossible (you ended up with a UMD Rogue as a virtual caster, though, so, again, we're talking technicalities), and the non-caster options were at least a bit more customizeable.  5e works better without items, but has less to offer non-casters.  Without casters or items, both fail.4e though, worked quite smoothly with all-martial parties, even in a magical world, and with or without items, since items were so low-impact outside the treadmill, and inherent bonuses took care of that.  The Warlord was a critical part of that - a Martial Controller would have made it even better.By itself, vastly more casters than non-casters, it just gives someone wanting to play a magic-user more choices.  The range of things magic can do, vs the range of things that can be done adequately without it is more significant.  There's reason to expect correlation between the two, of course, as it wouldn't make a huge amount of sense to have 33 sub-classes that weren't meaningfully different from eachother.  That expectation might not be met, given that 15 of those sub-classes are from only 2 classes, though, and that there's a lot of overlap in spell lists.  That aside, magic can accomplish a great deal in 5e, and covers the full range of conceivable contributions a character could make to the party, while the few non-magical PC options, taken together, offer neither a significant range of meaningful choices, nor a viable range of party contributions.  Relative to 3.5 where a few were wildly overpowered, sure.  Relative to 4e where they were more balanced, not so much.  The Warlord was balanced in 4e, where magic was more limited and less overpowered, it'll need a boost to be viable in 5e.No single class is theoretically 'required' given the range of classes we've had over the decades.  The Warlord, though, comes closer to being genuinely unique than most, including most of those in the 5e PH.  The issue facing the all-martial party in 5e is that they're all pretty DPR focused, and, while a party can get through some combats with little else going for it, it's not viable in the long term, nor, likely even the term of a whole adventuring 'day.'  Any new Barbarian, Rogue, or Fighter sub-class is unlikely to break out of that, whatever secondary tricks or ribbons they may get.  For that matter, the non-casting Ranger didn't go very far in any other direction, either.  So, no, it's not just a matter of throwing more of the same at the wall and calling them 'new' options.5e's DM Empowerment does leave it wide-open to rulings, re-interpretations, modules, and house-rules to customize it to whatever you want, if you're willing to do the work.  That doesn't make the system, itself, terribly flexible, though, just not actively trying to tie your hands.  Unmodified, it falls far behind 3.5/PF & 4e in terms of player options, and short of 4e in terms of the range of styles and settings possible within its framework, and not just because it can't handle a dearth of casters in the party.  5e could easily become the most accommodating edition in terms of styles supported, but it's not there yet, and should continue to strive towards that goal.  It'd be great to see it get there, or even just get closer.  The Warlord would be a big step in that direction on a number of levels. The 3e fighter, alone, offered more customizeabilty than all 5 of 5e's non-caster sub-classes.  MCing fighter, pre-casting ranger levels, rogue, & barbarian together, even moreso.  There were two builds of each class, just in the PH, so that's 8 vs 5.  Furthermore, that's 2 defender, 2 leader and 4 Striker options  vs 5 Striker options.  Then there's 17 maneuvers restricted to 1 sub-class vs hundreds for each class.If we want to go beyond release/core, then SCAG adds a few, all still mainly contributing DPR, and Martial Power 1 & 2 triple the number of build options.   Compared to 2e when TWFing and archery were the obvious-best options, sure.  Compared to 3e & 4e, not so much.  Not that 5e is wholly inferior, it has a nice refinement (compared to the 3.5 & 4e feats) in how it lets a fighter (or anyone, really), easily choose DEX vs STR as their weapon attack stat, just by choosing the right weapons, for one instance, and the loss of choice/customizeability isn't for nothing: Styles & Feats let you copy a few 3.5 builds without needing so much system-mastery nor the 20-level build plan ready at the start of the campaign, for another.  There's just a lot of room for more.</blockquote>

Verification