Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jester David" data-source="post: 7323560" data-attributes="member: 37579">It's not that they're better than the wizard at casting spells or using magic, it's just that they're better at spotting the opening or timing an attack. They know what their allies can do and can give them suggestions. The wizard is worrying about other things: other enemies, dodging blows, their friends, etc. But the warlord yells "Left flank. The one in red. Aim low!" And the wizard and spin and drop that firebolt.Like Captain America. He's not able to throw lightning or bullseye and arrow but he can call the play. He knows, given the situation, the best use of his ally's abilities. It wouldn't likely be mandated. A good design would read "As an action you call out a weakness in an enemy that you can see. An ally of your choosing within 60 feet who can hear you and see the enemy, can choose to strike as a reaction, making a weapon attack or casting a cantrip."Choice should also always been on the table. Which it is in my above example. So the wizard can look back and say "eff that, Imma save my reaction for shield." They could always get two actions: an action and reaction. This should be just giving people extra triggers for reactions being "when an enemy moves out of your reach". By design, it's no stranger than the battlemaster fighter suddenly getting extra actions when they learn the Parry maneuver. Yes. Because the description says magic. But… if you just cross that out it becomes mundane.Let's look at bless:You bless up to three creatures of your choice within range. Whenever a target makes an attack roll or a saving throw before the spell ends, the target can roll a d4 and add the number rolled to the attack roll or saving throw.But tweak a few words and it becomes You shout a rallying cry heard by up to three creatures of your choice within range who can hear you. Whenever a target makes an attack roll or a saving throw before the effect ends, the target can roll a d4 and add the number rolled to the attack roll or saving throw. BAM! Non-magical. That's totally a power than a warlord type character would have. The rules and flavour are not shackles. You can do whatever the heck you want with the game. If your DM is on board, you can pick and choose a few key spells and turn a valour bard or cleric of war into a warlord with almost zero effort. But, you say, what about anti-magic fields and other stuff? Again, the rules aren't shackles. In this case the DM just says waves their hand and says "bibbidi bobbidi fiat"  and the "warlord's" powers are not spells and non-magical. But they have the extra requirement of requiring hearing, a shared language, and can't be done subtly. As far as house rules go, I've made waaaaay bigger changes to my game in the past. Changes that affect every character and not just one PC. Like dumping hit points in favour of Wound Points and Vitality. Heck, in my game right now, I have a sorcerer that casts uses Intelligence because the player hates being a Charismatic character and the party "face". It keeps him happy and doesn't unbalance things. I do agree.But to do the concept well, a lot of 4e-isms will probably need to go away. Just like the 3e marshall needs a lot of its stuff updated and jetissened. And there's lots of stuff that could be added as well that just wasn't a think in 4e and 3e. But all this is moot as I don't think the class is a priority. They've done two attempts and neither made people happy. A third attempt won't likely make people happy either. So it's easier to focus on content that will make the most people happy. It's just setting themselves to fail with a class that won't succeed on their satisfaction surveys.The hard truth is that 4e wasn't popular. A third of the audience didn't convert and a third switched to Pathfinder. And of the people who DID switch to 4e, not every one of them would be a warlord fan. So even limiting the audience who played the game a decade ago, a minority is pro-warlord. While many fans have come back to D&D, just as many new players have joined with 5e. There's potentially more new blood playing than old fans. And none of those new fans give a crap about the warlord. The support isn't there. If you could somehow poll all the D&D fans in the world and ask them what class they want added to an official book, the #1 answer would probably be psychics—like Eleven in Stranger Things—followed by Witchers and then either the artificer or blood hunter owing to their presence in Critical Role. Potentially followed by the death knight or demon hunter because of Warcraft. (Really, combining the witcher, demon hunter, and blood hunter would probably be the most popular unfilled class niche.)</blockquote>

Verification