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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Pour" data-source="post: 6097895" data-attributes="member: 59411">I can't entirely disagree with Mearl's approach to Warlord, but then we should apply the logic to Barbarian, Ranger, Paladin, Monk, Assassin, Sorcerer, and leave four base classes with multiple branches. However, we all know that won't be happening. I'm trying to follow the logic of that, and the only thing I can come up with is Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian, these are all legacy classes with a lot of history meant to evoke a certain feel or nostalgia. I'm annoyed by the idea that a Paladin is in no matter what because it's been in 4 editions of the game, but the Warlord is not because it was only in 4e. I mean how else can you apply his logic about the Warlord and not apply it to the other cousin classes? And there are plenty of thematic and flavorful characters, whole archetypes, which lend themselves more toward a Warlord than a Fighter. Are we really going to force each other to list examples, then pick at them endlessly? I'm surprised that was even used as a reason for dissolving Warlord upthread. And if we did absorb all Warlord archetypes and character examples into the Fighter, then we also must lump Aragorn into the pile as a Fighter that builds on a mix of wilderness and 'lost heir' options, and St. George as a particularly devote Fighter with some divine smattering, and Conan as a Fighter with a mix of Strength-based feats and a dash of thieving. It may not look like much mechanically to a person, but those defining themes strike me as incredibly important. And yes, there should be a leader/support class that is not reliant on magic or divinity whatsoever.</blockquote>

Verification