Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Blue" data-source="post: 7041646" data-attributes="member: 20564">I'm sorry, I must have explained myself poorly.&nbsp; I'm not saying 5e is inferior or superior.&nbsp; I'm saying it is different and specific mechanics don't come over as well even if you can express them. If I wanted to pull over a 3.5 Fighter and said that &quot;I get a point of BAB every level&quot;, that's something that breaks the 5e design.&nbsp; It's not that the system is inferior, it's just that mechanic not how you represents &quot;good at weapon fighting&quot; in 5e.As for balance being &quot;not even third&quot;, that's a large about of subjectivity in there because balance has so many factors.&nbsp; We do know that they have boosted the ranger when it was considered weaker and the published version of the storm sorcerer was nerfed from the UA version, likely from playtest feedback.&nbsp; So I personally feel they do care about balance, as least how it impacts fun around the table.&nbsp; But it's subjective: I can't say you are wrong.&nbsp; All I can say is that if you set out to create something without balance, it will likely not make it into my game and my guess is that it won't become official.And since many are clamoring for an official warlord, why not design something within the guidelines we can glean from the existing rules?&nbsp; It's more likely to be accepted by many.&nbsp; And to that end, the designers have been very consistent in that extra action cost either more actions then they give, limited resources, or both.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Blue, post: 7041646, member: 20564"] I'm sorry, I must have explained myself poorly. I'm not saying 5e is inferior or superior. I'm saying it is different and specific mechanics don't come over as well even if you can express them. If I wanted to pull over a 3.5 Fighter and said that "I get a point of BAB every level", that's something that breaks the 5e design. It's not that the system is inferior, it's just that mechanic not how you represents "good at weapon fighting" in 5e. As for balance being "not even third", that's a large about of subjectivity in there because balance has so many factors. We do know that they have boosted the ranger when it was considered weaker and the published version of the storm sorcerer was nerfed from the UA version, likely from playtest feedback. So I personally feel they do care about balance, as least how it impacts fun around the table. But it's subjective: I can't say you are wrong. All I can say is that if you set out to create something without balance, it will likely not make it into my game and my guess is that it won't become official. And since many are clamoring for an official warlord, why not design something within the guidelines we can glean from the existing rules? It's more likely to be accepted by many. And to that end, the designers have been very consistent in that extra action cost either more actions then they give, limited resources, or both. [/QUOTE]

Verification