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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9337395" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Not at all.Unlike the Psion comparison I made above, most Warlord fans want pretty much the same thing. The differences are generally quite small, often focused on:Is the class more "lazy" or more personally active? (The former leads to "Noble" type preferences; the latter proceeds to the next question)Are its tactics infinitely reusable, or resource-based? (The former leads to something more like an At-Will based Warlord; the latter proceeds)Are its resources whittled away by spending, or built up before spending?My preference is more personally active (with laziness as a specific option), and a mix of both infinitely-usable and resource-based things. I still have my stalled-out Summoner homebrew (writer's block is a real #@$&% sometimes), but the concept-sketch uses the 5.0 Warlock "split subclass" model of pact vs patron, short-rest resources, and high customizability. Minor subclass defines your Leadership Style (different overall approaches based on Int, Cha, or Wis), while major subclass defines the unique way you approach tactical efforts (e.g. a skullduggery-based "kingpin" type, an always-works-through-proxies mastermind, the aforementioned "Knight-Enchanter" who masters the tactical use of spellcraft, a wilderness-survival commando, a "captain and her crew" type, etc.) The Invocation structure would then be repurposed for "Tactics" or "Machinations," stuff you can do essentially all the time but that requires knowledge, training, or practice to use (read: most have prerequisites). Instead of short-rest spell slots, you have short-rest Strategems, which are things you've rehearsed with your teammates; both Warlord and party can't really do a bazillion different tactics all concurrently, so there's only a small number you can drill on and draw upon at a moment's notice, but with a short rest, you can easily drill a few new ones as needed. I'd want to keep the list of Strategems relatively short, unlike a spell list, and most likely the Warlord would choose a set they'd learned by heart.The only sticking point was (and remains) how to replace the Eldritch Arcana, since those are spells proper and, as stated, no baked-in spells is an absolutely mandatory requirement. When, or rather if, I get around to this, I'd need to do both brainstorming and testing to see what kinds of things would be worthwhile.I've also had the idea that better Strategems require the Warlord to build up a resource first, call it "Gambit" or the like, so that there's a reason why the Warlord doesn't just deploy "Attack Pattern Delta" every single time--you have to "get into place" first, as it were. These are, of course, abstractions that simplify away the specific behavioral details, but we do that with all sorts of elements within D&D as it is, so I don't take that as much of a criticism.</blockquote>

Verification