Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6729931" data-attributes="member: 996">I have, in the context of filling the traditional support role, only.&nbsp; Warlords don't need to cast Flame Strike without magic (dumpling flaming oil on attackers during a siege notwithstanding), for instance.&nbsp; Well, 'adequate' or 'competitive' or 'viable' rather than precisely 'equal' was my intent.It's a bizarre sticking point, but its somehow important to a non-trivial faction of the D&amp;D fan-base that nothing be any good (at anything but DPR or a few classic 'Thief' functions) unless a 'magic' tag is hanging off it.&nbsp; Non-magical, but with one supernatural archetype?&nbsp; I nominate Ardent as the supernatural Warlord archetype.&nbsp; It's a perfect fit, and you could put the Mystic &amp; Warlord in the same book.You could never quite do a 4e fighter in 3.5, customizeable as it was, because there was no mark-style mechanic available, at all.&nbsp; But you could do so many other things the 4e fighter couldn't possibly do with those 7 feats, like exert battlefield control with a reach weapon.&nbsp; The claim as I recall it was classes from past PH1s were up for consideration.&nbsp; It was more of a negative claim:&nbsp; that any class not in a prior-ed PH1 was not even considered for the 5e PH.&nbsp; (not that they exactly stuck to that, either)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6729931, member: 996"] I have, in the context of filling the traditional support role, only. Warlords don't need to cast Flame Strike without magic (dumpling flaming oil on attackers during a siege notwithstanding), for instance. Well, 'adequate' or 'competitive' or 'viable' rather than precisely 'equal' was my intent. It's a bizarre sticking point, but its somehow important to a non-trivial faction of the D&D fan-base that nothing be any good (at anything but DPR or a few classic 'Thief' functions) unless a 'magic' tag is hanging off it. Non-magical, but with one supernatural archetype? I nominate Ardent as the supernatural Warlord archetype. It's a perfect fit, and you could put the Mystic & Warlord in the same book. You could never quite do a 4e fighter in 3.5, customizeable as it was, because there was no mark-style mechanic available, at all. But you could do so many other things the 4e fighter couldn't possibly do with those 7 feats, like exert battlefield control with a reach weapon. The claim as I recall it was classes from past PH1s were up for consideration. It was more of a negative claim: that any class not in a prior-ed PH1 was not even considered for the 5e PH. (not that they exactly stuck to that, either) [/QUOTE]

Verification