Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 9672773" data-attributes="member: 6795602">As a really narrow example.&nbsp; Let's make a Drill Sergant class.&nbsp; Fluff is something like &quot;The Drill Sergant is a dedicated trainer of groups of fighting men.&nbsp; They know how to get the most out of them, how to push them past their limits, how to forge your unit into a cohesive whole.&quot;Now I know why the basic Fighter cannot do the things the Drill Sergant class can, because he's not a dedicated trainer of groups of fighting men.&nbsp; You can see how that's also limiting the Fighter's classes narrative ever so slightly (probably fine for the narrow Drill Sergant Class since the Fighter is so broad anyways, just need to be careful not to split too many otherwise mundane things off from the Fighter class IMO.)But the Warlord fluff most people give never explains why the Warlord can do mundane things a Fighter cannot.&nbsp; And then the 2nd issue is that the broader you make the Warlord, the more narratives you are taking away from Fighters.&nbsp; This is one reason virtually every other martial is a half caster or has some kind of mystical power (rage or ki).&nbsp; It's a built in explanation for why those classes can do things the Fighter cannot.So taking these ideas let's write up the typical Warlord.&nbsp; The Warlord demonstrates martial prowess while having innate tactical and leadership prowess. That's the most common view of the Warlord that I've came across.&nbsp; The problem there is, Fighters can have innate tactical and leadership abilities as well and so it doesn't make narrative sense for why they cannot do the things the Warlord is doing.&nbsp; Alternatively, if we restrict fighters to not having innate tactical and leadership abilities to explain the difference in Warlord abilities and theirs, then you've eliminated a huge number of fighter narratives.Thus, IMO the fluff just doesn't gel in the broader context of 5e.&nbsp; And changing the fluff means we aren't getting the 4e Warlord anyways.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="FrogReaver, post: 9672773, member: 6795602"] As a really narrow example. Let's make a Drill Sergant class. Fluff is something like [I]"The Drill Sergant is a dedicated trainer of groups of fighting men. They know how to get the most out of them, how to push them past their limits, how to forge your unit into a cohesive whole."[/I] Now I know why the basic Fighter cannot do the things the Drill Sergant class can, because he's not a dedicated trainer of groups of fighting men. You can see how that's also limiting the Fighter's classes narrative ever so slightly (probably fine for the narrow Drill Sergant Class since the Fighter is so broad anyways, just need to be careful not to split too many otherwise mundane things off from the Fighter class IMO.) But the Warlord fluff most people give never explains why the Warlord can do mundane things a Fighter cannot. And then the 2nd issue is that the broader you make the Warlord, the more narratives you are taking away from Fighters. This is one reason virtually every other martial is a half caster or has some kind of mystical power (rage or ki). It's a built in explanation for why those classes can do things the Fighter cannot. So taking these ideas let's write up the typical Warlord. [I]The Warlord demonstrates martial prowess while having innate tactical and leadership prowess. [/I] That's the most common view of the Warlord that I've came across. The problem there is, Fighters can have innate tactical and leadership abilities as well and so it doesn't make narrative sense for why they cannot do the things the Warlord is doing. Alternatively, if we restrict fighters to not having innate tactical and leadership abilities to explain the difference in Warlord abilities and theirs, then you've eliminated a huge number of fighter narratives. Thus, IMO the fluff just doesn't gel in the broader context of 5e. And changing the fluff means we aren't getting the 4e Warlord anyways. [/QUOTE]

Verification