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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7045586" data-attributes="member: 996">100+ powers for each class'll do it, but at least some those specific ones, I think, may have been lifted from the 3.5 Bo9S.  The inexplicable Gormengast  'White Raven' references, for sure. Classic Bravura Warlord stuff. Most such powers in 4e just left it up to the DM "....target may take an OA..." kinda phrasing.  [sblock="Warlord is really the best name..."]... at least the best name that comes anything close to suggesting the tip of the iceberg of archetypes the class concept suggests while sounding appropriately fantasy-genre-esque (military ranks are even narrow, connote legitimate authority, and tend to sound more modern to our ears, since they're still in use).  It's negative connotations are /less/ than those of existing classes, like the Warlock, or sub-classes like the Assassin, which made it in without a hint of complaint - the most nearly cogent complaint, the use of the term in the media to describe terrorist leaders is, ironically, equally applicable to the Cleric, used by the same media with equal frequency and greater scope to describe fatwa-issuing nominally-spiritual leaders of those same terrorists.  Again, something which garnered not the least hint of controversy for that class.[/sblock] And, as alluded to, above, the name space is crowded, not just with 5e classes & sub-classes & backgrounds, but with past-edition Classes, Kits, sub-Classes, and PrCs, bringing the risk of calling back something completely unrelated.  Perhaps why 5e used the most recent past-edition name for every full class in the PH?...Fluff, OTOH, as long as it's left mutable, is the kind of thing easily changed by a player to fit the character he wants, or even by negotiation among DM & players, to achieve the best fit to the setting, campaign, and group playstyles.  That should certainly be left as open as possible.  In fact, I think the most interesting concepts opened up the Warlord aren't the most obvious ones, and it would be nice to have the quasi-non-combatant contributions that were possible with the 4e Warlord get an appropriate sub-class to make them a clearer option.Of course, that would need a better name than the CharOp 'lazylord,' or even Garthanos's evocative (but too old-fashioned) 'Princess build.'  Moonsong called her corresponding sub-class 'Heart,' which wasn't bad.  You and I have said 'side-kick' which gets the idea across, but's about as appealing as having a class called 'protagonist.' <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />  Any other ideas?  "Icon" springs to mind, perhaps only because I've been watching Star Trek re-runs on H&I.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification