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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6017364" data-attributes="member: 996">5e's philosophy is to make classes distinct by giving them distinct mechanics and hearkening to their history.  The Warlord's history is easy, because it is so brief, and in that brief history it was a Leader class, quite concerned with managing encounter, daily & action resources - it's own and the party's.  The 5e fighter, whose resource-management is personal and round-by-round fails to evoke that at all, and is probably a poor foundation on which to build the Warlord.  Not that the Warlord can't have some kind of dice pool if that's what all martial characters are getting, just as casters all cast spells, but it doesn't have to use them any more like the fighter does than the warlock needs to use spells like a wizard.Strategy & tactics arguably are a form of martial prowess.  But, yes, the Warlord probably doesn't need to hit quite as well or as hard as the fighter, not any more than the cleric or other non-fighters do.  The fighter needs to keep his claim to fame, afterall.  But trying to build the Warlord from the fighter would, IMHO, be a mistake.  Better to start with a class with comparable function, like the Cleric.  Take away the Cleric's channel divinity and spells and replace them with Inspiring and Tactical actions, take away his orisons and replace them with a dice pool...  you're getting pretty close to a Warlord and have a good idea of how potent each of those things need to be.  Try to work from the fighter and you'll get a somewhat tactical fighter that might be interesting, but won't be a Warlord.</blockquote>

Verification