Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7384432" data-attributes="member: 996">You're right, of course.  It is nothing more than simple prejudice to believe that everyone wanting to play a non-supernatural character is necessarily looking for simplistic mechanics and not interested in exercising system mastery or player agency.The popularity of the fighter has held steady through all editions, from the bone-simple fighting man, to the high-damage TWFing weapon-specialist, to the complex builds of 3.x, to the 4e 'defender' with more powers than any other class, to the backlash of Essentials ushering in the simplified 'striker' Slayer sub-class, through to 5e offering an even simpler more DPR-specialized Champion and the nominally more complex BM. It's the relatable, genre-appropriate concept of the hero, fighting bravely without any supernatural powers of his own to aid him, that is popular, not the varied and often inadequate mechanics that D&D has used to model it.The BM does not go nearly far enough in allowing anyone wanting to play a non-magical concept to still play a choice-rich, mechanically engaging character.  The Warlord is free of the  expectations surrounding the fighter of past editions, so can afford to be at least as 'complex' as it was in 4e - preferably as flexible and potentially high-contributing as the extant 5e support classes.</blockquote>