Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ganders" data-source="post: 6872178" data-attributes="member: 37815">Gosh, there are lots of ways this could go.Warlord isn't the only previous-editions class that could be updated.  Cavalier, for instance, has appeared one way or another in every edition.  If I must pick just one, I guess that's it. Archer, perhaps?  Oh sure, the Fighter and Ranger exist, but there are lots of ways to do archers.Perhaps a class that makes as much special use of blunt weapons as rogues make use of piercing weapons.  There are other ways to do this, for instance as a subclass of fighter, or by just making a feat akin to Crossbow Expert.  But if Rogue is distinct enough from Fighter to be its own class, this could be too.There's quite a lot of room to rework Warlocks into analogous classes, due to oddities in the mechanics.  Fey patrons don't offer the spell Conjure Woodland Beings?  Tomelocks have to drop Hex every time they use a ritual?  And too many of the invocations have Prerequisite: one subclass.  Lots of little conflicts and issues like those just have to make you think maybe you could design it better.  While you're at it, how about a divine warlock, rather than arcane?  And don't give me 'that's what a Cleric is'.There have been classes that were for one specific race only.  Spellsingers and Dwarven Defenders come to mind.  Many others could be dreamed up.  But I'd especially like to see something that's female-only.  Partly because I just like thinking of various male players having to portray female characters.  I believe that if the flavor is done well enough, you can actually keep it from turning into a scantily-clad farce.  (Not that you couldn't have such a farce with any other class anyway)  The one thing I wouldn't know how to avoid, though, is having female players guided, or pressured, toward playing this class.There's certainly a lack of a class that's mostly defense, with little if any offensive power.  Someone who simply survives long enough for the rest of the party to do the killing.  Maybe that's intentional, but maybe it's just difficult to do in 5e.  Anyone who has any access to cantrips gets a base level of offense.  And it's really hard to block access to cantrips (ie one feat or one level multiclass).  Maybe it's not feasible.I've often thought there was room for more support classes.  No, this is not another Warlord.  I mean someone who stays out of the fray altogether, blends in the background, doesn't even participate in fights.  Well, to be a balanced class, he'd probably have to toss buffs on the party, thus increasing the party's DPS just as much as if he was actually fighting.  And certainly some non-combat roles (scouting, travel, social, etc).  Maybe this is out of bounds: players are supposed to be forced to face tense moments, wondering if their character is about to die on the next attacks, and everyone is supposed to want to be heroic, and 'gets to' share the spotlight in every battle.  Many DMs might ban such a class on principle.  But there actually are players (and not just meek/shy ones) who would prefer to avoid all that.  There would still need to be some way to keep this class from using damage-cantrips, though.</blockquote>

Verification