Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ashrym" data-source="post: 8414019" data-attributes="member: 6750235">I like the tinker idea.&nbsp; Engineer or mechanic might fit in there too.&nbsp; Reminds me of an old RPG video game with a smith class.I had the rogue in with the wizard and artificer because the rogue is the go-to class for versatility in the martial classes, often relies on wits or intellect (at least in stories), and often uses tools for effect (think flash bombs grenades, caltrops, ball bearings).The concern with the bard to trickster to rogue is the seems to point to a specific style of bard rather than being more representative.&nbsp; Not that it doesn't work like that because it is a common thematic bard but it's not my personal typical bard.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />It's a nice list.Warlocks gain spell levels at the same rate as other spell casters as well and using the short rests can cast more spells per day.&nbsp; They are a variation on a full caster by splitting resources.&nbsp; The ability to spam spells is metered on them and that's the only real difference.Having said that, if I were to do a half-caster on the same model I would probably limit it to 1 slot per short rest until 11th level and then increase it to 2 slots, not give cantrips, add a fighting style, customize a list of invocations with half the progression warlocks have, and then add a few thematic subclass abilities.&nbsp; Possible a couple of class abilities, but definitely no arcanum.I consider warlord a subtype of fighter that the 5e chassis will never be capable of satisfying the 4e fans of the class.&nbsp; The concept is sound but there's only ever been that design structure and it doesn't fall back in to 5e terms as well as updating older classes.I forgot about them at first too.&nbsp; They do fit.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ashrym, post: 8414019, member: 6750235"] I like the tinker idea. Engineer or mechanic might fit in there too. Reminds me of an old RPG video game with a smith class. I had the rogue in with the wizard and artificer because the rogue is the go-to class for versatility in the martial classes, often relies on wits or intellect (at least in stories), and often uses tools for effect (think flash bombs grenades, caltrops, ball bearings). The concern with the bard to trickster to rogue is the seems to point to a specific style of bard rather than being more representative. Not that it doesn't work like that because it is a common thematic bard but it's not my personal typical bard. :) It's a nice list. Warlocks gain spell levels at the same rate as other spell casters as well and using the short rests can cast more spells per day. They are a variation on a full caster by splitting resources. The ability to spam spells is metered on them and that's the only real difference. Having said that, if I were to do a half-caster on the same model I would probably limit it to 1 slot per short rest until 11th level and then increase it to 2 slots, not give cantrips, add a fighting style, customize a list of invocations with half the progression warlocks have, and then add a few thematic subclass abilities. Possible a couple of class abilities, but definitely no arcanum. I consider warlord a subtype of fighter that the 5e chassis will never be capable of satisfying the 4e fans of the class. The concept is sound but there's only ever been that design structure and it doesn't fall back in to 5e terms as well as updating older classes. I forgot about them at first too. They do fit. [/QUOTE]

Verification