Its not impossible, its just not ideal. Its being weighed down with Fighter stuff that isn't essential to the Warlord concept. The Warlord shouldn't have everything from the base Fighter chasis, and having that also limits its overall power and potential.
That is what I said for the last posts. I think you did prove my point.
I don't know most if them... although maybe I do. How many are there?
I don't care what 3rd parties do. I don't like the ENworld one too much.
Yeh, they are evil.
Because often subsystems are annyoingly complex and bring a system to a halt. They do well being conservative there.
I don't think it is weighted down woth fighter stuff. It is enhanced by it.
Yeah. Multiple true warlords... see the problem?
Anything a character gets has to be balanced against what other subclasses get
If multiple versions of classes existing is grounds for them being bad, then you're saying the WotC druid, sorcerer and warlock should all be removed, because there's numerous versions out there changing those up. Like, two warlords? Yeah that's nothing, there's like a good 4 iterations of the sorcerer out and about, and before we even get to the like. 10 witch classes out there.
Not having all of the fighter's stuff and having that class debt being given to stuff that helps the party. Kibbles and Laser both got it fine and their Warlords are very distinct from the Battlemaster.
So, Bard then.
That's not the point of the Warlord archetype. That's only for the Lazylord, the derivative build of the archeytpe.
That's my point.
And that just runs into the debt from the bard side of things, though it is closer this way. But magical secrets and stuff like that? That's not useful for you or your concept and ties into the Bard fantasy which is irrelevant to the concept being played at the table. You're still getting another class's debt in the way of your character concept.
