Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mirrorrorrim" data-source="post: 8999148" data-attributes="member: 7040132">My first 4E character was a polearm-wielding tiefling warlord. I loved the concept of a martial character being able to lead and support the team. That is kinda why I like paladins because even if they only help others with lay on hands and auras. But when it comes to design, narratively, I don't see 1 class owning all that stuff that they tried to shoehorn in. I really like the leader-type maneuvers introduced in the 5E fighter, but even then that was too limited.I honestly believe that spreading out the &quot;Warlord&quot;-concept abilities into a bunch of &quot;leader&quot; subclasses, and the rest going into robust leadership feats and maneuvers would be the best way to go, so more than one class can opt into that playstyle. SubclassesBarbarian - Primal Path of the Warlord (it probably can't happen due to history but barbarian warlord is a trope)Bard -&nbsp; College of Valor Cleric - Domain of OrderDruid - Circle of the ShepherdFighter - Banneret Monk - Tradition of MercyPaladin - Oath of the CrownRanger - Packmaster (you can influence/lead animals, and those instincts happen also to help with humanoids.Rogue - MastermindSorcerer - Ascended Sovereign (an aspirant Sovereign Sorcerer theme with a self-idealized right to rule and protect using magic.)Warlock - Pact of the Witch Queen/King (The patron teaches how to influence/lead in their name, in hopes to grow their influence.)Wizard - Warmage (re-imagine this as a smart arcane military leader like the War Wizards of Cormyr)Artificer - Battlesmith</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mirrorrorrim, post: 8999148, member: 7040132"] My first 4E character was a polearm-wielding tiefling warlord. I loved the concept of a martial character being able to lead and support the team. That is kinda why I like paladins because even if they only help others with lay on hands and auras. But when it comes to design, narratively, I don't see 1 class owning all that stuff that they tried to shoehorn in. I really like the leader-type maneuvers introduced in the 5E fighter, but even then that was too limited. I honestly believe that spreading out the "Warlord"-concept abilities into a bunch of "leader" subclasses, and the rest going into robust leadership feats and maneuvers would be the best way to go, so more than one class can opt into that playstyle. [U]Subclasses[/U] Barbarian - [B]Primal Path of the Warlord[/B] (it probably can't happen due to history but barbarian warlord is a trope) Bard - [B]College of Valor[/B] Cleric - [B]Domain of Order[/B] Druid - [B]Circle of the Shepherd[/B] Fighter - [B]Banneret [/B] Monk - [B]Tradition of Mercy[/B] Paladin - [B]Oath of the Crown[/B] Ranger - [B]Packmaster[/B] (you can influence/lead animals, and those instincts happen also to help with humanoids. Rogue - [B]Mastermind[/B] Sorcerer - [B]Ascended Sovereign[/B] (an aspirant Sovereign Sorcerer theme with a self-idealized right to rule and protect using magic.) Warlock - [B]Pact of the Witch Queen/King [/B](The patron teaches how to influence/lead in their name, in hopes to grow their influence.) Wizard - [B]Warmage [/B](re-imagine this as a smart arcane military leader like the War Wizards of Cormyr) Artificer - [B]Battlesmith[/B] [/QUOTE]

Verification