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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aldarc" data-source="post: 7045195" data-attributes="member: 5142">Which isn't a homebrewed Warlord class... (please see the parentheses in what you quoted) I suspect you are misunderstanding the crux of the arguments surrounding PDK, perhaps from conflating separate arguments. I would estimate that most of the discussion surrounding the PDK on its own merit as a fighter subclass has been on the PDK being lackluster, boring, or under-powered as a suboptimal choice for a fighter subclass. There is a separate discussion regarding whether the PDK makes for a suitable Warlord substitute. And yes, there are people who have said that it does not do enough to be Warlord-like. But perhaps you are mistakenly taking this to mean that the Warlord should have the Fighter chassis plus a more powerful PDK? I think the intent in saying the PKD should have more to be a Warlord is that the PDK (and BM or Mastermind) subclass should be expanded on a separate chassis apart from the Fighter chassis. In fact, one of the most common arguments that the pro-warlord party have repeated on this forum is that the fighter chassis provides TOO MUCH for any warlord. Warlord fans don't want the Warlord to be a Fighter. They want the Warlord to be a Warlord. They want the offensive DPR output that the Fighter chassis inherently has to be toned down in favor of tactical utility and support. It's difficult to find a homebrewed Warlord that gets more than one extra attack. The Fighter gets four. Many Warlord homebrews give them d8 HD instead of a d10. I have not seen a Warlord homebrew that gives Warlords as many ASIs as the Fighter. Most give them 5-6, as per the standard or rogues. I apologize if I have let your gross mischaracterization of the warlord discussion to cause me to mischaracterize the intent of your argument.</blockquote>

Verification