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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mirrorrorrim" data-source="post: 9019092" data-attributes="member: 7040132">I would love for both the Fighter and the "Battlemaster" to be the effective way to build a "Warlord," but I admit there is more that can go into the Fighter and subclass design overall to support it.First, I would love for Maneuvers to be one of the class mechanics for the Base Fighter, rather than leave them only for Battlemasters and feats. For those who prefer simple Fighters, it could be designed similarly to how casters get suggested spells that they can swap out. There can be some simple Maneuvers that a simple Fighter gets automatically, but that the Fighter can instead choose to swap out for a more complicated Maneuver in its place. Heck, there can be example load-outs that show players what options can be chosen to play a leader, or tank, or striker.Second, though there are a number of leadership Manuever options, there are a lot more that can be added as options to build out the leadership styles. If a Druid can get page count for lots of Wildshape stat-blocks, and Warlocks can get lists of Invocations, the Fighter can have a more robust list of Maneuvers.Third, the Fighter can also use their Fighter Bonus Feats to get more maneuvers if they so choose, and they can opt into Battlemaster to get more maneuvers, or Banneret to get other leadership options as well.And finally, regarding the Subclass Name flavor-train, many people hate the word "Warlord" and others dislike "military officer titles" (like Tactician, Captain, Commander, etc.) for a variety of reasons that have been talked to death. But out of all the naming options, "Battlemaster" is my favorite that can represent a warrior who has mastery over the battlefield itself, and it is not tied to the baggage of all the other "military" options out there. It's very D&D, as well.</blockquote>

Verification