tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2130572569541182865.post6046258167610286734..comments2024-03-18T12:27:18.556-04:00Comments on Casa Cabeza: New Player’s Handbook is Coming Next MonthDanno E. Cabezahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00514343832663815418noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2130572569541182865.post-39850248947698712792014-07-31T11:20:02.635-04:002014-07-31T11:20:02.635-04:00I forgot about the Thug background, and likewise, ...I forgot about the Thug background, and likewise, I forgot that Backgrounds now give skills. That's a good point. Definitely a viable way of building a working Street Thug. Danno E. Cabezahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00514343832663815418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2130572569541182865.post-62793670132256534482014-07-30T15:34:08.834-04:002014-07-30T15:34:08.834-04:00Yeah, my one problem with that Horselord implement...Yeah, my one problem with that Horselord implementation is what I mentioned before - waiting until 3rd level to flip the class's basic function. Anyway, if you have thoughts on how to get more classes involved in mounted-combat play.<br /><br />I am with you on having loved the Warlord class in 4e. It was, to put it crudely, boss as fuck. What I'm seeing in the feat list that Mearls released is that you could splash Warlord-ness into any class with feat purchase, though I don't know how true that will really prove to be. While I would welcome a new Warlord class or Fighter archetype, I think that "I provide leadership in combat" can conceptually splash into any other concept really well. For example - wouldn't it be great if GK could be a barbarian who is also a canny combat leader? (You'd need to decide ahead of time that the barbarian's core class feature of Rage was not a thematic clash with providing leadership in combat. I'm personally comfortable with that; YMMV.)<br /><br />I am in terrible suspense to see the rest of the game's healing economy - whether there are druids, paladins, even rangers that are sufficient healers, or if we're back to 3.x where clerics are the only true healers and everyone else is half-assing it.<br /><br />I hear you about the EK being heavy-armor focused and feeling dissatisfied with that. I don't *know,* but I'm be a bit surprised if they haven't solved for that within the archetype's abilities with an Unarmored Defense ability, or with a kicker to Mage Armor.<br /><br />I also loved the Thug Background in the playtest packet - I doubt we'll see it in the final, since the name-drops in the previews are not identical to the packet. Anyway, the Thug's trait went a long way toward covering the shakedown artist without being especially stat-focused.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13333781524640845035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2130572569541182865.post-91875037937297853842014-07-30T14:43:17.165-04:002014-07-30T14:43:17.165-04:00These are all good points. I particularly agree t...These are all good points. I particularly agree that Genghis Khan was personally a Warlord. His men, though, were--at best--noble savages who conquered a host of decadent but far more civilized societies using sheer ferocity as one of their primary weapons systems.<br /><br />I would argue that you could manage this Barbarian problem in two ways. First, you could key the Horselord's Rage powers to his being mounted. Second, you could build a Rage that gives Dex-based powers. In the first case, I might write something like this:<br /><br />Horselord (Lvl 3): While you are mounted and raging, you gain Advantage versus all dismounted humanoid creatures. (This would work particularly well if you wanted to do a Strength-based Barbarian who threw axes from the saddle.)<br /><br />The second case is straightforward, save for the Fluff. I would say something like: "You see red, and around you, the world slows. Your enemies move as though standing in quicksand, making you a terror on the battlefield."<br /><br />In crunch terms, your Dex-based attacks gain advantage. This makes sense for a mounted Barbarian because in actual history, the Mongols used curved swords similar to scimitars.<br /><br />With all of that said, there are certainly ways to model the concepts we've discussed using extant classes.<br /><br />***<br />My favorite thing about 4e was the Warlord as its own class, occupying a niche adjacent to the Cleric's. I would like to see that return, and I would like to see it devoted to some sort of tactical model like it was in 4e. Commander's Strike is a good start, don't get me wrong, but you yourself have pointed out that right now Clerics are SOLELY responsible for the party's healing. It's hard to know how much the current PHB will allow some diversity around this, but it'd be nice if there was A LOT of support for would-be Warlords. At a minimun, I'm surprised that there's not a separate Warlord subclass.<br /><br />***<br />My issue with the Eldritch Knight is that I'm conceptually annoyed at the idea of a Knight in platemail casting spells in combat. Of course, we haven't seen the execution of the subclass, so maybe I'm missing something fundamental, but I'd like to see more than one way to skin this particular cat. Maybe the EK will be great--it certainly could be--but I also think there's room for some other ideas. Granted, we may well see those in the PHB, and then too, there's plenty of room for the game to continue expanding.<br /><br />***<br />You're right about being able to model the Thug as a kind of Fighter. You could. But I don't know how many Fighters are going to have Charisma as their secondary stat, and a Thug would need that to be an effective extortionist / shake-down artist.Danno E. Cabezahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00514343832663815418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2130572569541182865.post-61377609486044762122014-07-30T11:39:13.921-04:002014-07-30T11:39:13.921-04:00Hmm. I'm not sure if I'd stat Mr. Khan as ...Hmm. I'm not sure if I'd stat Mr. Khan as a barbarian. Archers are a real tough sell for the barbarian class outside of the subclasses (based on the playtest, obviously), without hanging the whole class on "you can use Strength for archery attack and damage," and "all of the things in the barbarian class that are melee-only are instead ranged-only for you." Now, obviously they could do that, though having to suffer through two levels of being normal barbarian with horselord stats before you got your first Path ability at 3rd level would be... well, exactly the problem with the concept of the Apprentice tier.<br /><br />The tactics of horse archery - hit and run, coordinated charges, and so on - suggest to me the fighter's discipline or the ranger's Beast Mastery (with the horse, in this case), rather than the barbarian's rage. Okay, there could be a Horse totem barbarian. But if you're willing to interpret the Big GK as a fighter or ranger, he works fine right out of the gate.<br /><br />Of course, if the archery part of the equation is uninteresting to you and you want to keep the focus on mounted melee combat, that's fine too. =) In that case, a horselord barbarian path makes sense, and I'd be interested to see what kinds of abilities they received. In general I worry that mounted combat is a poor fit for normal D&D play, but if the whole party is aware that most combats will be mount-friendly (your don't-Google-that phrase of the day), then it would probably be fine.<br /><br />The _apparent_ new home of the warlord concept is the fighter's Battle Master archetype, based on some leaked documents I've seen. It gets maneuvers like Commander's Strike (very, very 4e warlord) and Rally (granting temp hit points). I'm guessing that with the Inspiring Leader and Healer feats, you can cover the warlord concept without adding a whole new Archetype for it. At the same time, the Battle Master can also be the Swashbuckler (again, possibly with some feat support).<br /><br />I am mostly-sure the Eldritch Knight is going to cover all of the conceptual space that the swordmage/spellsword/bladesinger subclasses would entail. Really, the question is: would you rather bolt some spellcasting onto the Fighter, or melee combat and additional durability onto the Wizard? Both are valid, but _thus far_ WotC has chosen the former over the latter.<br /><br />I agree with you that more Rogue subclasses would be good, though I wonder if the Thug might be better modeled as a Fighter with the Criminal background.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13333781524640845035noreply@blogger.com