Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7067840" data-attributes="member: 996">Not the consideration in 5e that it was in 4e, but...&nbsp;The fighter chassis is pretty well loaded up on 'best at fighting,' tanky DPR, so simply layering anything worthwhile on that is potentially problematic.&nbsp; The problem is not 'equivalent of constant bless spell' (not by itself, but you're really talking a Marshal - passive aura - there, not a Warlord), the problem is 'fighter chassis.' &nbsp;Maneuvers could be expanded to an equally workable &amp; fun sub-system - and they have a better name, as a bonus.&nbsp;A proof-of-concept, at any rate.&nbsp; That's the point Hussar keeps trying to make:&nbsp;&nbsp; Examples of the elements are all there, so the system can clearly handle it, and, those elements have drawn little of the ire 4e did, so it should be safe. &nbsp;It's also very dilute.&nbsp; Even if you MC'd 'em all together, you'd be mixing the 3% Warlord BM with the 2% Warlord PDK and the 5% Warlord Mm, that's not going to get you 10% Warlord.&nbsp; That you can't MC sub-classes /is/ an issue, in itself, sure, in that something isolated in a sub-class becomes inaccessible to the core class via MCing, while much further-afield things do not.&nbsp; It's a foible of the optional MC-ing sub-system.&nbsp; (The other problem with the PDK is really more that only fighters and only fighters on the cusp of 3rd level, can become members of this order.&nbsp; That must be a very odd entrance requirement.&nbsp; &quot;Nope, sorry, can't take you, you're too good!&quot;&nbsp; PDK really screams PrC.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7067840, member: 996"] Not the consideration in 5e that it was in 4e, but... The fighter chassis is pretty well loaded up on 'best at fighting,' tanky DPR, so simply layering anything worthwhile on that is potentially problematic. The problem is not 'equivalent of constant bless spell' (not by itself, but you're really talking a Marshal - passive aura - there, not a Warlord), the problem is 'fighter chassis.' Maneuvers could be expanded to an equally workable & fun sub-system - and they have a better name, as a bonus. A proof-of-concept, at any rate. That's the point Hussar keeps trying to make: Examples of the elements are all there, so the system can clearly handle it, and, those elements have drawn little of the ire 4e did, so it should be safe. It's also very dilute. Even if you MC'd 'em all together, you'd be mixing the 3% Warlord BM with the 2% Warlord PDK and the 5% Warlord Mm, that's not going to get you 10% Warlord. That you can't MC sub-classes /is/ an issue, in itself, sure, in that something isolated in a sub-class becomes inaccessible to the core class via MCing, while much further-afield things do not. It's a foible of the optional MC-ing sub-system. (The other problem with the PDK is really more that only fighters and only fighters on the cusp of 3rd level, can become members of this order. That must be a very odd entrance requirement. "Nope, sorry, can't take you, you're too good!" PDK really screams PrC.) [/QUOTE]

Verification