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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dualazi" data-source="post: 7044841" data-attributes="member: 6855537">Overall, pretty great post, and one that I think does apply to future discussions beyond the recent influx of warlord discussions. The balance section is correct in theory but somewhat disingenuous in regards to the warlord in particular, however, as one of the big reasons there’s still a push for it as a standalone class is exactly what you mention; people are well aware that a fighter chassis with full warlord ability is overpowered. Broadly speaking, I think people are quite content with a low damage character that can sufficiently fill the role of nonmagical buffer/healer, which in the minds of a large number of warlord fans isn’t reproducible at this time. Back on the topic of balance at large, it somewhat has to be a two-way street, though, and I admit I’m certainly guilty of knee-jerk reactions from time to time. What I’m getting at is that it’s a tricky art to balance across campaigns, tables, and the class as a whole. The Artificer’s Thunder Monger or whatever it’s called looks super overpowered at a glance, but the base class has so little innate fighting power that it works out.This doesn’t really apply to D&D though. Other fantasy RPGs can and have boiled classes down to 3, and you could conceivably go lower with 2, magic and non-magic. Problem is that it gets messy, often doesn’t have the necessary granularity for desired distinctiveness, and of course goes against the history of the game that is still enjoyed by many. As others have pointed out, with the eldritch knight framework you can already cross off paladin and ranger, and probably barbarians as well. I don’t advocate that of course, but the potential to include a theme or concept within another class isn’t in and of itself a reason to not create it as a standalone class.</blockquote>

Verification