Recent content by I'm A Banana

I mean, I can't prove it, since I'm not there, but I'm quite confident that they do. They've shown a very good ability to listen to multiple channels of feedback. I'm sure they're quite aware that warlord fans aren't all happy with the current options, just like they're aware that psion fans...

This theorycraft isn't born out in actual play. Most 1st-tier monks I've seen blast through an average monster by spending a single ki point on flurry when they decide to nova. d8 hp doesn't mean you get one-shotted, so you can take a round or two of hits (and a round or two is all you need)...

The corollary here is that if commander's strike (or other options) wasn't enough for most people then we would have an official version of the warlord by now when WotC responded to the outcry of excluding it by now. Heck, we probably would've had one in 2014 - these dudes have been...

It's pretty clear in play what a Monk is meant to do, because every monk I've ever actually seen in play is a focused damage-dealer who mostly piles multiple attacks into the enemy. Spending ki is an expected part of their play (spending resources is an expected part of any class's play, no?)...

No, it's strictly nonmagical. See, it says so: It's Not Magic. Right there in The Rules (as proposed). I can't believe I'm bringing this up for the SECOND time in as many weeks, but it's a very good way to parse the talking points here: Saitama. One Punch Man. His origin story is doing a lot...

The Warlord in 4e was a full caster, 'cuz everyone in 4e was a full caster, and if you want to make a Warlord in 5e, we should use a Wizard chassis, and in this essay I will.... ;)

I've got zero problem with a level 20 warlord calling up supernatural help with their (entirely nonmagical) ability to call in an oath, be they angle or debil or zombo or dragin or whatever. It's a magical world, there's magical armies, this person knows how best to use them, even if they don't...

Like any other 5e class, that this hypothetical warlord could also serve in some minimal capacity in any combat or adventuring role. That it has a way to burst damage, that it has ribbons that reinforce its out of combat identity, that it doesn't have to rely on its allies to carry it. And 4e...

This whole bit of the convo started because I said that martial exploits and magical spells aren't actually mechanically very distinct and that a lot of spells could work pretty easily as martial exploits. Showing that to be true means showing that, for instance, the distance between circle of...

Personally, I like that class isn't a tactical or strategic decision. And I wonder what a warlord that wasn't tethered to the requirement of being a "support class" would look like (even if it was a good support class).

I wonder if you read the relevant bit upthread. You did read the bit about the alternative spellcasting mechanic? Here it is again. The idea is that it's pretty easy to make a martial character able to access a list of non-magical "spells." No more complicated than bards and artificers...

This is actually pretty simple to change. I've shown the work. Components and effects that interact with magic and even damage types (though I didn't include those) are not exactly load bearing. This can be embedded into an alternative class feature pretty easily. Let's take my Martial Exploits...

I'd personally be really into making a few warlord "spells" for bards and paladins especially. :)

Making martial characters more like spellcasters has been an idea that got a lot of traction in late 3e, which laid the groundwork for what happened in 4e. As you point out, "everyone was a caster." There's a few really good reasons 5e didn't go with this. For instance, one of the issues that...

In the tradition of warlord conversations not being about the warlord, this is a conversation about why 5e might be reluctant to officially add classes, and there are reasons for that beyond "Make warlord fans suffer." This is actually the SAME conversation that the psion fans want to have.