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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sword of Spirit" data-source="post: 7674816" data-attributes="member: 6677017">This was helpful. Personally, while I don't like inspirational healing, I had no problem with the warlord, and I wouldn't have had a major problem with it in 5e (as long as any inspiration healing it might provide were in temporary hit points). I mean, while I wasn't a fan of 4e, the very first character I played was a dwarf warlord, because I thought the idea was interesting. (The name of the class on the other hand, I can't tolerate.)But you helped me figure out why I'm uncomfortable with the ongoing calls for a 5e warlord.In addition to the things you mentioned, I'm not really seeing anything substantive that is missing from the warlord's schtick in the offerings we currently have. Unless I don't know how to read the 4e PHB, the warlord's main things were healing and buffing allies and granting them actions.The Rally maneuver heals allies (temp hit points).The Distracting Strike maneuver buffs an ally's attack, and the Inspiring Leader feat buffs your entire party's hit points.The Maneuvering Attack maneuver allows you to grant an ally movement, and the Commander's Strike maneuver lets you grant an ally an attack.Conceptually, I can't see anything else needed to fit the archetype than a Battle Master fighter taking those 4 maneuvers and that feat.Would the demand for a warlord feel met by a list of new maneuvers to provide additional options? I mean, that could be done, but even then it seems like the current maneuvers more or less have the bases covered. There are only so many things to mechanically do in 5e combat.Perhaps a new Fighting Style that is only half about fighting and half about warlording somehow (take the Mariner style for precedent).I mean, really, I think it may be an emotional appeal more than a logical appeal. I get it. I wanted an assassin base class. Why? Because they felt different than just a type of rogue. You know, more assassin-y. But really, what could they have done with an assassin that really justified a base class, given the design philosophy of the edition? Not a whole heck of a lot. A fighter/rogue multiclass really does the job. Did anyone listen to the interview with R.A. Salvatore when he was talking about the directive he got from TSR to kill off the assassin Artemis Entreri because all the assassins died in the fiction of the change from 1e to 2e? After a long discussion the idea finally hit him: Artemis Entreri isn't an assassin. He's a fighter/thief who kills people for money.The point is that assassin is covered by rogue in the level of detail and abstraction that fits 5e. Warlord seems to be covered by the Battle Master in a similar level of 5e-appropriate detail. I can understand not being happy with a favored class being just a sub-build of a subclass (those 4 maneuvers are the only ones that have anything to do with being a warlord). But I can't really see how a warlord class could be elegantly introduced to the 5e class design space. It has to pretty much either just be a few more maneuver or feat options, or it has to add an entirely new set of systems to 5e, and risk throwing off the way the various elements of the game cohere.No, no it's not.</blockquote>

Verification