Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7042818" data-attributes="member: 996">Huh? Oh, I neglected to delete the last line of your post when I quoted you.Sorry......fixed. Oh, advancement.  Any variation at all.  I mean, that's a poor excuse for a 1st-level Warlord even at 4th level (8th if you're not variant human), and at 1st & 2nd it's nothing like one at all, but after the second feat, what happens?  You just keep accumulating HD and extra attack.  The Battlemaster is comparable to the Warlord the way the Eldritch Knight is comparable to the Wizard... that is, if the EK only ever got 1st level spells, and only ever learned 6 of them, and only 3 or 4 were actually spells that bore a resemblance to something on the wizard list.    The BM is fine if you want a 4e fighter in the way the EK is fine if you want a 1e fighter/magic-user, it's nice if you want a character who's mostly one thing (tanky DPR), but a little bit something else (maneuvers or spells).  That's as far as it goes.  The BM doesn't really do the 3.5 or 4e fighter justice, either, but it's not as far short as it is of the Warlord.  More to the point, the 3.5 & 4e fighters were supposed to be tanks & hit pretty hard (the former depending on build, obviously) so all that juicy DPR and general toughness is on the money, even if it falls short in customizeability, flexiblity, or defender support - for the Warlord, it's excessive, just eats up design space.</blockquote>