Search results

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.

The overall point is that warlord conversations go around in circles because they're not really about warlords, they're about other things. It's actually relatively trivial, and I could see it happening, but there's some good reasons why it might not, partially related to some issues some...

They don't, but if what you really want deep down is for martials to have powers that are equal to spells again, you're not talking about the Warlord, you're talking about 5e's choice to not open the can of worms that is martial dailies. Mechanically, this is a fix: ========================...

A big reason warlord discussions often fail to go anywhere is that the warlord is, in some cases, just a shibboleth for "I prefer how 4e did things." So, the convo just becomes grousing about how 5e doesn't have 4e's model of martial powers, or how 5e doesn't officially support a purely morale...

The distinction I'm making is between playing a game where I play a writer, and playing a game where I play a character. These are distinct methods of play, with different kinds of fun in them. When I play D&D, I want to play a character - for me, ROLE PLAYING suggests that element of it, and...

Sure. And nonmagical butt-whooping is currently supported and could be supported further.

Being a protagonist isn't something that exists in reality, so yes, being fictional is inherently beyond natural. I guess it's kind of an open question if "natural" is the kind of thing we want to work towards. I'm a fan of diegetic explanations for remarkable abilities. "Being a protagonist"...

Roll 1d6 for my response. I like them. I like them quite a bit. I think some of the best moments of any game I've played have come about because of random rolls. I believe significant randomness is inherent to the enjoyment of TTRPGs in general because it increases tension and produces...

Maybe she doesn't think that the problem has been solved by Fate at all, actually? Like, just because you like a mechanic, doesn't mean everyone else has to like it.

Everything is a remix. Creativity is recycling. There is nothing truly new under the sun. IP is a prison holding back the creativity of generations. Etc.