Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="D'karr" data-source="post: 6099381" data-attributes="member: 336">By the way, in 3.x there was a swashbuckler class in one of the &quot;complete&quot; books, if I'm not mistaken, and I believe a prestige class that also allowed a &quot;duelist&quot; build.&nbsp; I can't recall where I remember seeing the duelist.&nbsp; And Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed introduced the Unfettered, which was by far a much more robust &quot;duelist&quot; class than all the ones above. I think that the difference is that a warlord doesn't need to be &quot;fighting guy&quot;, he can and should be &quot;thinking guy&quot;.&nbsp; I was watching season 2 of Game of Thrones just last night, and Tyrion Lannister in the battle of Blackwater Bay is a perfect example of a warlord.&nbsp; Jamie Lannister is the most fearsome sword in Westeros (fighter, knight), but the imp?&nbsp; He's nothing in the &quot;fighting&quot; sense, but he's got a sharp mind, and he was able to &quot;lead&quot; the attack because of his wits, not because of his battle prowess.The current &quot;issue&quot; with cramming the warlord into the fighter is that everything mechanical for the warlord is not necessarily cued up from the same abilities as the fighter.&nbsp; Fighter STR, DEX, CON whereas the Warlord is INT, CHA, WIS.&nbsp; When a warlord needs to negotiate he's not using STR, he's using CHA.&nbsp; And a warlord should be that negotiator.&nbsp; Since when do negotiation duties of any kind fall on the fighter in D&amp;D?&nbsp; In addition, if you look at the most basic level the fighter's schtick as an &quot;at-will&quot; in DDN is attack with weapon, the warlord's however is not.&nbsp; Most of the things he does &quot;at-will&quot; are keyed to moving his allies into position for attack, and granting them attacks.&nbsp; Mechanically the fighter is currently inadequate for that aspect.&nbsp; From the skills side (ability checks) I only have to mention again what I already did (CHA).And if you're going to cram those capabilities on other mechanical constructs (background, specialties, and feats) then you are diluting the warlord by &quot;feat tax&quot; mechanics.&nbsp; If you play a wizard you get your abilities right from your class, and get to customize him/her with these other things (background, specialties, spells, and feats).&nbsp; If you want to play an effective warlord you're going to have to pick fighter, then pick the warlord class feature, then add the &quot;inspirational commander&quot; specialty, and the &quot;diplomat&quot; background.&nbsp; Every other class gets to customize starting from an effective base class that fits the player concept.&nbsp; For warlord you have to customize to even get to an effective base class.Don't get me wrong.&nbsp; I'm not saying that you can't hack an existing class to get to the warlord.&nbsp; We have not seen, in the public playtest, any class that has enough design space to hack the warlord from.&nbsp; How much hacking do you have to do before you have essentially built a new class?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="D'karr, post: 6099381, member: 336"] By the way, in 3.x there was a swashbuckler class in one of the "complete" books, if I'm not mistaken, and I believe a prestige class that also allowed a "duelist" build. I can't recall where I remember seeing the duelist. And Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed introduced the Unfettered, which was by far a much more robust "duelist" class than all the ones above. I think that the difference is that a warlord doesn't need to be "fighting guy", he can and should be "thinking guy". I was watching season 2 of Game of Thrones just last night, and Tyrion Lannister in the battle of Blackwater Bay is a perfect example of a warlord. Jamie Lannister is the most fearsome sword in Westeros (fighter, knight), but the imp? He's nothing in the "fighting" sense, but he's got a sharp mind, and he was able to "lead" the attack because of his wits, not because of his battle prowess. The current "issue" with cramming the warlord into the fighter is that everything mechanical for the warlord is not necessarily cued up from the same abilities as the fighter. Fighter STR, DEX, CON whereas the Warlord is INT, CHA, WIS. When a warlord needs to negotiate he's not using STR, he's using CHA. And a warlord should be that negotiator. Since when do negotiation duties of any kind fall on the fighter in D&D? In addition, if you look at the most basic level the fighter's schtick as an "at-will" in DDN is attack with weapon, the warlord's however is not. Most of the things he does "at-will" are keyed to moving his allies into position for attack, and granting them attacks. Mechanically the fighter is currently inadequate for that aspect. From the skills side (ability checks) I only have to mention again what I already did (CHA). And if you're going to cram those capabilities on other mechanical constructs (background, specialties, and feats) then you are diluting the warlord by "feat tax" mechanics. If you play a wizard you get your abilities right from your class, and get to customize him/her with these other things (background, specialties, spells, and feats). If you want to play an effective warlord you're going to have to pick fighter, then pick the warlord class feature, then add the "inspirational commander" specialty, and the "diplomat" background. Every other class gets to customize starting from an effective base class that fits the player concept. For warlord you have to customize to even get to an effective base class. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that you can't hack an existing class to get to the warlord. We have not seen, in the public playtest, any class that has enough design space to hack the warlord from. How much hacking do you have to do before you have essentially built a new class? [/QUOTE]

Verification