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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6704538" data-attributes="member: 996">To an extent, the Warlord, Rogue, Ranger, Cavalier, Barbarian, Duelist, Thief, Monk, Assassin, Bandit, Pirate, Swashbuckler, Archer, Knight, Scout, and quite a few other classes, sub-classes, attempted classes, speculative class ideas, PrCs, variants, and whatnot (heck whole 'fantasy heartbreaker' game systems) over the years, have all stemmed from the marked inadequacy of the traditional D&D fighter.  5e chose not to address that issue by vastly broadening the Fighter class, so here we are. This has been a problem that's kept the fighter in the dog house so much of the time.  Propose something remotely cool/interesting/useful/effective for the fighter, and you get a refrain of 'well everyone should be able to do that,' followed by the conclusion that, 'well, gee, everyone does that, so it's not really adding anything to the game but complexity,' and *snip* gone.  See, for instance, virtually everything they tried giving the fighter in the Next playtest, but, particularly, Martial Damage Dice. It's certainly within the range of concepts the Warlord could reasonably be expected to cover.  But, no, bundling the Warlord with a large set of variants isn't a great idea.  Options modules should be, well, modular.  If you want just the warlord, you opt into just the Warlord.  If you want just some battlesystem-esque battlefield rules, you pull in just those.  Modular.  That's me objecting as a 5e fan, BTW, just to be clear.  I'm more sanguine about it thinking strictly as a warlord fan, though it'd have to be part of a general system re-design to really work.  Not much of a stretch, and given 5e's more open design, bounded accuracy, and treatment of 'pet' classes, animating undead, and the like, I'd have to think something like that would be almost inevitable.  Hopefully, it'd be kept as an option, a matter of customization or other player choices, as it certainly wouldn't be for everyone, nor every table.</blockquote>

Verification