Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7041654" data-attributes="member: 996">Sure, specific mechanics don't.&nbsp; Can't go taking a minor action or partial action in 5e, for instance.&nbsp; The 3.x fighter paid a high price for full BAB, in 5e, everyone advances in the superficially-corresponding proficiency bonus at the same rate, instead, Extra Attack grants the corresponding benefit making the fighter a better fighter than the wizard, for instance. But there's no need nor call to port over mechanics so specific.&nbsp; And, 5e is a much looser system with a lot more open design space, the freedom to do /more/ with the Warlord in 5e far out-weighs such minor technicalities.&nbsp;Those extra actions are in the context of the Battlemaster, sub-class of a class which is already very high DPR on it's own. As opposed to the Bardic one, yes, I see.&nbsp; I think it's a little funny how 5e threw out three different version of 'Inspiration.'&nbsp; The word got thrown around a lot in the playtest in the context of the Warlord, and that was a strange response, but not an atypical one. WotC has this weird thing with words (or maybe I do).&nbsp; For instance, in the 3.5 era, a lot of fans were big on restricting things to 'core only' the phrase got a lot of play.&nbsp; 4e comes out and virtually every book is labeled 'core.'&nbsp; C'mon.&nbsp; The 3.5 community also tended to call really broken combos 'exploits.'&nbsp; In 4e, the word Exploit was used as a label for martial powers.&nbsp; It's an odd little thread of coincidence I've noticed running through WotC's tenure with the IP.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7041654, member: 996"] Sure, specific mechanics don't. Can't go taking a minor action or partial action in 5e, for instance. The 3.x fighter paid a high price for full BAB, in 5e, everyone advances in the superficially-corresponding proficiency bonus at the same rate, instead, Extra Attack grants the corresponding benefit making the fighter a better fighter than the wizard, for instance. But there's no need nor call to port over mechanics so specific. And, 5e is a much looser system with a lot more open design space, the freedom to do /more/ with the Warlord in 5e far out-weighs such minor technicalities. Those extra actions are in the context of the Battlemaster, sub-class of a class which is already very high DPR on it's own. As opposed to the Bardic one, yes, I see. I think it's a little funny how 5e threw out three different version of 'Inspiration.' The word got thrown around a lot in the playtest in the context of the Warlord, and that was a strange response, but not an atypical one. WotC has this weird thing with words (or maybe I do). For instance, in the 3.5 era, a lot of fans were big on restricting things to 'core only' the phrase got a lot of play. 4e comes out and virtually every book is labeled 'core.' C'mon. The 3.5 community also tended to call really broken combos 'exploits.' In 4e, the word Exploit was used as a label for martial powers. It's an odd little thread of coincidence I've noticed running through WotC's tenure with the IP. [/QUOTE]

Verification