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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="D'karr" data-source="post: 6098581" data-attributes="member: 336">Except that nobody is forcing anyone to select warlord or fighter.  If I select warlord I know exactly what I'm getting, and all the other options are still available.  If I select fighter I know exactly what I'm getting, and all the other options are still available.  If the only option is fighter there is no choice.  If the base ability for the fighter is Strength, and when I select the option for warlord that is still the only option then there is no option.Fighter "builds" in 4e usually used STR, and CON as their defining attributes.  Warlord "builds" were based of INT and CHA.  Just that little option changes things drastically at the base level.  The fighter could afford to dump stat intelligence or charisma if he wanted.  The warlord would not.  It is these little nuances that get lost when you cut everything off the same cloth.  For all the talk about "sameness" in 4e rolling everything into less classes is not bound to provide less "sameness".I believe more options are better than less.  The warlord has pretty solid mechanical underpinnings that are different than the fighter.  If those mechanical underpinnings can be emulated within the fighter without eliminating customization options then I don't care how they do it.  What I think people are saying is that eliminating the option and breadth of the class by subsuming it within another class is fine, as long as you don't lose the real differences between the fighter, and warlord.  Like I said earlier, in no edition until 4e did you have very specific mechanical underpinnings that accomplished within any single class what was possible with the warlord.You didn't need to multiclass in 4e you simply selected the warlord.  I agree that multiclassing should not be the option that is required to assemble the concept you want.  But if someone wants to play a warlord because the warlord singularly has the mechanical structures to satisfy their character concept, and the class has enough mechanical breadth, which I think it does, to warrant a full class instead of a subclass then the sensible solution would be to create a full class.At this time I have not seen anything, within the structures that they have shown in DDN, that leads me to believe that warlord could be sensibly and satisfactorily represented as a subclass of fighter.  I could be wrong, but when the only thing they are concentrating on seems to be the "inspiring" part of the warlord it sure seems like the designers are missing the forest for the trees.</blockquote>

Verification