D&D 5E Boop

[Tony Vargas]

Oddly those two were the first which came to my mind.

They're obvious. The Valor Bard has some melee, and is a full 'support' class, the Paladin is full-on high-DPR tanky melee, with a dedicated side of healing and save-buffing. The Warlord was a Martial Leader - an heroic weapon-user (no-magic) who's primary job was to boost his allies. Functionally similar to the Bard - or Cleric, or even Druid(Sentinel) - who were all also leaders.

The 5e Paladin - though not nearly as badly as the fighter - is too focused on tanky DPR, in it's hard-coded mechanical features, like Extra Attack, HD, &c - to make a good template for a viable primary-support-contributor class, which really call for the kind of resource-heavy chassis you only see, in 5e, on full-caster classes.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Fenris-77]

The above is pretty much exactly why the Paladin occurred to me first when I was thinking of what chassis I'd use.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Fenris-77]

So you're telling me you wouldn't want to try and use the Paldin chassis as a force for good? Assuming you think the goal of producing a WL class is good I guess, which isn't a given. Even if you hate WL then you'd also have gnome warlords to hate, so there's that.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Eyes of Nine]

Funny, I just jumped to the end of this thread, and I agree with @lowkey13 and @Fenris-77 that Paladin would get my vote. I'm sure others would serve, but it seems like you could take the smites and shift them to other players (plus get a bit of a spiff somehow so your action isn't totally wasted).

 

[Tony Vargas]

So you're telling me you wouldn't want to try and use the Paldin chassis as a force for good?

"The ends justify the means?"

 

[Fenris-77]

"The ends justify the means?"

When it comes to Paladins? For sure. They're like hitmen in movies, it doesn't really matter what happens to them I never feel bad.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*