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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="smbakeresq" data-source="post: 7369498" data-attributes="member: 28301">While that is literally true the idea is the Warlord needs to be as effective but different.  Like we talked about before, the Warlord should be built around the Paladin chassis for balance reasons, just with different mechanics.  The Fighter base chassis is pretty strong as it is, and even better when you get your class specific 3 and 4 attacks per round at 11+ with the extra feats thrown in.  With those extra feats or ABI you will have build defining feats much earlier then others, so whatever you add in needs to be moderated somewhat.Mearls idea "we already have a class that grants attacks" is just not understanding how people play, people who play BM will tell you Commanders Strike is only worth it with a backstabbing rogue or Paladin willing to smite with the actions you have to give up.  The other maneuvers are rarely worth it.  However there are pieces all over the rules that if put into one package and modified somewhat it would work and be effective.  It also seems like Mearls is strictly fixated on a tactical warlord using intelligence, and the idea of using a zone just seems clunky and destined to slow down combat.  Also his idea that "we don't wont to interfere with bonus actions so as not to mess up two weapon fighting" is absurd, the whole idea is to make choices in combat.  Besides there are many other things that they put it to use your bonus action, it seems a weird hill to die on.  Maybe the better idea is to have a better list of maneuvers in his idea.There are some good ideas in there, but by starting off by basing it off the eldritch knight I think was a bad idea.</blockquote>

Verification