Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gradine" data-source="post: 7042141" data-attributes="member: 57112">I love me some good old fashioned class bloat. I'll be the last person to say that we should never have a fully fledged Warlord in 5e. My biggest problem with this constant refrain is that we already have it. We've gotten it at least three different ways now. No, no single way is perfect; I won't repeat the arguments about the differences between combat in 5e and 4e, or how it's bad design to include abilities centered around precise positioning in a system where tactical positioning is not strictly enforced or even assumed, only to say that these arguments are true and shouldn't be really dismissed. But even if you do, the fact remains that with the right multicasting and squinting at the fluff of certain abilities (such as Bard healing) you can, more or less, make that character. Right now. Now, I won't argue that it wouldn't be nice to have an easier way to make that character, like having its own dedicated class. But WotC clearly has limited resources to put to new class construction, and given the choice between new classes that rehash current mechanics, and new classes that create new mechanics and dynamics in gameplay, well, to me that choice is obvious. So here is my not at all complete list of legacy classes I'd rather WotC work on recreating for 5e instead of Warlord. As an added bonus, many of them perform similar roles, at their core mechanically, even if they appear quite different.1) Factotum. From 3.5: Dungeonscape. The basic concept is twofold. First, they are the ultimate INT based skill monkey; its class skill list just said "All." Second, they had a limited resource pool (Font of Inspiration, which the 5e Bard stole the name of) that they could spend in order to perform the basic functions of any other archetype; cast a limited range of spells, heal, sneak attack, etc. A 5e Factotum would probably add Extra Attack to that repertoire. It's very similar to the concept of trading your action for the most appropriate action in any given round; the big difference is it's still your action. The class would probably drive charopers nutty over trading power for versatility (that and not having any Iaijutsu nonsense to abuse), but isn't that the basic principle of the lazylord? Just without the laziness?2) Archivist. From 3.5: Heroes of Horror. Fulfills your need for nonmagical buffs. Oh they're still magical (divine book casters, which for my money is way more interesting conceptually than divine spontaneous casters); but the buffs are strictly knowledge based. I used to describe them to my players as a Watcher with a Pokedex. May not need a full class, maybe a Wizard archetype, similar to the new Favoured Soul being a Sorcerer archetype, with Dark Knowledge buffs filling out the subclass abilities.3) Spellthief. From 3.5: Complete Adventurer. Way too interesting of a concept and mechanic to be confined to a single ability of a single subclass at way too high a level to ever see typical play. Could basically absorb spells, and eventually spell-like and supernatural abilities from others to use later, like a limited use version of Rogue from the X-men. You could even use it on a willing target, like an ally. Rather than have it step on the Arcane Trickster's toes, I'd probably make it a full fledged class with half casting, with a spell list more focused on transmutation, conjuration and divination. A mobile, striker-y class that focuses more on having the right tool for the job. I see the old Mindspy prestige class as a possible archetype, or the 4e Swordmage.So yeah, those are three classes off the top of my head I'd rather see before a Warlord. To say nothing of even more niche but interesting classes like Psionics, Incarnum, Binders. I'm not opposed to hashing out yet another attempt at a Warlord. I'm opposed to making it a priority when there's way more interesting conceptual new ground to cover instead.</blockquote>

Verification