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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="muffin_of_chaos" data-source="post: 4202443" data-attributes="member: 65007">Before 4E, nothing resembled the Warlord.  So should I hate 3E because it didn't have one in its first book?  Maybe.Then make a Rogue that doesn't use sneak attack.Then wait for an official variation of what you're describing to come out.Or just change the Rogue's sneak attack feature into something else.  I swear it won't make any forlorn maidens cry out in pitiful agony.Why would you expect that a makeshift Swashbuckler would be competitive without its own class writeup anyway?  Just because we can fit a spec to your concept doesn't mean it's going to be balanced against the painstakingly-playtested 4E classes.Rangers are a ranged martial class that can support in combat.  Clerics are also potentially ranged, as they have an at-will ranged ability.  It's true that it doesn't seem like there's going to be a ranged warlord, but there also doesn't seem to be a melee warlock....Just like there wasn't a melee sorceror, ranged barbarian, or chaotic evil paladin in 3.0.So, if your potential Bard class had all of the features of a Bard, and was instead called a Minstrel, it wouldn't work for you, eh.As far as I know.Sounds like it's early for you to judge.Yeah.  Or, more likely, find a painstakingly crafted and playtested variation when one is posted on enworld the day of the 4E release.I can guarantee that it will in every way be more faithful to the common concept of Bardness than any previous incarnation was.</blockquote>

Verification