NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kinematics" data-source="post: 7373275" data-attributes="member: 6932123">There is a huge swathe of rogue concepts that are not fighters.  There is overlap in some ideas (eg: Conan, the Barbarian/Rogue), but everything from Gentleman Thief to Street Rat to Cat Burglar to Master Spy are pretty isolated from other character concepts.  It is very easy to find a character concept that neatly fits within the Rogue concept space.I'd like to combine this with Remathilis's comment about the Barbarian being in a somewhat similar relationship to the Fighter as the Warlord.The Barbarian is, by and large, a solo/small group fighter.  He's strongly built around being able to survive on his own, and will almost certainly be the best bet in a one-on-one fight.  While he does have some tools that link with allies (wolf totem, ancestors, etc), they are not defining features for the class as a whole.  A Barbarian is, "I can take your hit, laugh it off, and hit you back harder."The Fighter is, by and large, a professional soldier.  He's been trained in all manner of weapons and armor.  He can work solo, or he can work in a group.  You can easily fit a Fighter into a regiment and have him be able to smoothly work alongside all the rest, just like you can post him on guard duty and expect him to do fine.  He's comfortable at either end of the spectrum.The Warlord, as far as I can see, is on the opposite side of the Fighter from the Barbarian.  He is not the soloist.  He works best in a large group.  He needs the group.  And, as noted with your suggestion about war stories, he is very strongly inclined to be a group commander (for ever larger groups).Note: Rogue and Ranger are closer to Barbarian on the above axis, and Paladin is closer to Fighter.So if you want to look at Warlord from a class perspective, balancing him against the Barbarian, as a sort of mirror image, seems like a good start. (You could also work against the Rogue and Ranger, though they feel like weaker balances because of other differences.)  However if you don't consider that, he slides right in with Fighter, which makes it a clash with subclassing.OK, this is just a nonsensical statement. The number of rogue concepts could very well outnumber the number of fighter concepts, even after merging in Barbarian and Ranger.  Saying that Rogues shouldn't exist because of a lack of concept space is being willfully obtuse, veering into arguing in bad faith.Remember what I said about people arguing mechanics rather than concepts? You're doing that. Please stop.This statement doesn't make any sense.The only reason I've disqualified people in leadership is because they are almost never actually adventurers.  They are people who have gained enough experience (possibly as adventurers) to have graduated to a different level of play.  The Warlord concept there is easy.  The Warlord-as-adventurer, not so much.</blockquote>

Verification