Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sacrosanct" data-source="post: 7889150" data-attributes="member: 15700">You seem to be making the mistake that you need an extra attack in order to lead from the front.&nbsp; During the Tyranny of Dragons campaign, I was playing a tempest cleric.&nbsp; And I very much was the front line tank.&nbsp; That was true even in a party with a barbarian and a fighter/warlock.Also, while the warlord might technically be a warrior, they are focused more on leadership and tactics, and less time with the other fighters training with weapons.&nbsp; More of an officer (ugh, that word), than an enlisted grunt.This is the big problem with the warlord, and why it hasn't been created.&nbsp; You want it to be as good as a fighter and also do all these other things to support the party.&nbsp; You can't do that in 5e.&nbsp; You gotta pick and choose.&nbsp; Be a fighter with a few support options, or be a support class with a lot of options, but don't do as much dpr.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sacrosanct, post: 7889150, member: 15700"] You seem to be making the mistake that you need an extra attack in order to lead from the front. During the Tyranny of Dragons campaign, I was playing a tempest cleric. And I very much was the front line tank. That was true even in a party with a barbarian and a fighter/warlock. Also, while the warlord might technically be a warrior, they are focused more on leadership and tactics, and less time with the other fighters training with weapons. More of an officer (ugh, that word), than an enlisted grunt. This is the big problem with the warlord, and why it hasn't been created. You want it to be as good as a fighter [I]and [/I]also do all these other things to support the party. You can't do that in 5e. You gotta pick and choose. Be a fighter with a few support options, or be a support class with a lot of options, but don't do as much dpr. [/QUOTE]

Verification