Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7029893" data-attributes="member: 996">The topic was new classes, not how to muddle through until a class you want gets here, let alone try to design one.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />&nbsp; I mean, if the Valor Bard didn't exist you could play a Fighter/Wizard with the Entertainer Background.&nbsp; No Paladin?&nbsp; Noble Fighter/Cleric.&nbsp; No Ranger?&nbsp; Outlander Fighter/Rogue/Druid in the proportion that works for you.&nbsp; 5e gives players several different ways to come at a concept.&nbsp; With or w/o MCing, with a reprise of a class from a past edition, or if just a hint is desired, with a Background or Feat.Possible work-arounds and cobbled-together builds are no reason to exclude a Core class from development.&nbsp; &nbsp;One thing the 4e Warlord did that caused a hint of controversy early on (mainly on whether it was ranged or not, but still), Commander's Strike, could have potential action-economy implications.&nbsp; The main one, in 5e, being granting an attack (5e has no MBA concept) vs granting an action that must be used to attack.&nbsp; The former is much more contained in terms of potential power... except for Rogues' SA, for instance.&nbsp; The latter is more potent, but 'fairer' in that any ally can benefit proportionately from it - that is, it wouldn't penalize classes that depend on Extra Attack for DPR scaling.&nbsp; Not a major stumbling block.The Warlord was a full class in a past-edition PH1, and was a strong concept that could cover a swath of heroic archetypes that the game has consistently failed to support well for decades.&nbsp;&nbsp; The the 9th level Lord of the classic game, who gained followers but no abilities to lead or best utilize them, nor provide leadership to other allies.&nbsp;&nbsp; The 'natural leader who anchors the party' was how 3e characterized it's fighter, while giving it absolutely nothig to back that up.&nbsp; The 5e fighter is little different from that pedigree, it pays lip service to a sub-set of concepts the Warlord handled much better in 4e, but there simply isn't the design space in the sub-class of such a DPR-focused class to flesh it out and make it even as much of a suggestion of the Warlord as the EK is a suggestion of the Wizard.&nbsp; A 5e Warlord wouldn't be limited by formal 'Roles,' either.&nbsp; It's concept as a tactician could be fully realized with maneuvers ('tactical maneuvers,' even) that might affect enemies in ways that would have stepped on the 'Controller' role, before, for instance.&nbsp; The design space to do that is wide open, the existing non-caster sub-classes having barely scratched the surface.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7029893, member: 996"] The topic was new classes, not how to muddle through until a class you want gets here, let alone try to design one. ;) I mean, if the Valor Bard didn't exist you could play a Fighter/Wizard with the Entertainer Background. No Paladin? Noble Fighter/Cleric. No Ranger? Outlander Fighter/Rogue/Druid in the proportion that works for you. 5e gives players several different ways to come at a concept. With or w/o MCing, with a reprise of a class from a past edition, or if just a hint is desired, with a Background or Feat. Possible work-arounds and cobbled-together builds are no reason to exclude a Core class from development. One thing the 4e Warlord did that caused a hint of controversy early on (mainly on whether it was ranged or not, but still), Commander's Strike, could have potential action-economy implications. The main one, in 5e, being granting an attack (5e has no MBA concept) vs granting an action that must be used to attack. The former is much more contained in terms of potential power... except for Rogues' SA, for instance. The latter is more potent, but 'fairer' in that any ally can benefit proportionately from it - that is, it wouldn't penalize classes that depend on Extra Attack for DPR scaling. Not a major stumbling block. The Warlord was a full class in a past-edition PH1, and was a strong concept that could cover a swath of heroic archetypes that the game has consistently failed to support well for decades. The the 9th level Lord of the classic game, who gained followers but no abilities to lead or best utilize them, nor provide leadership to other allies. The 'natural leader who anchors the party' was how 3e characterized it's fighter, while giving it absolutely nothig to back that up. The 5e fighter is little different from that pedigree, it pays lip service to a sub-set of concepts the Warlord handled much better in 4e, but there simply isn't the design space in the sub-class of such a DPR-focused class to flesh it out and make it even as much of a suggestion of the Warlord as the EK is a suggestion of the Wizard. A 5e Warlord wouldn't be limited by formal 'Roles,' either. It's concept as a tactician could be fully realized with maneuvers ('tactical maneuvers,' even) that might affect enemies in ways that would have stepped on the 'Controller' role, before, for instance. The design space to do that is wide open, the existing non-caster sub-classes having barely scratched the surface. [/QUOTE]

Verification