Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ashrym" data-source="post: 7862840" data-attributes="member: 6750235">The main difference is in supporting others more.&nbsp; One of the reasons given, iirc, is that warlord style abilities were being covered by the battle master and / or valor bard.&nbsp; The sticking point was warlords had abilities that were non-magical and that's why some people loved them and other people hated them.Another issue is that 5e deliberately cut down on action economy and that affected a lot of 4e leader abilities, including the warlord.The battle master does have warlord-like qualities but it's clearly focused on the fighter / martial side of things instead of that leader role.&nbsp; Honestly, if the maneuvers included using the help action without costing an action, and allowing spending a hit die for healing (instead of needing a short rest) the battle master would be a lot closer in that representation because it does already have maneuvers to grant attacks or movement.&nbsp; It's just never going to be 4e because of other changes to the basic system.Bards are better at covering the concepts but that's because the concept was really a support role trying to hide behind the leader name.&nbsp; That still gets back to the nonmagical warlord so if a person really wants that support role to not be magical then the bard doesn't cut it.&nbsp; Plus the inherent fluff can be different but fluff is easy to change.And then it turned out people preferred the bards?&nbsp; Look were we are now.&nbsp; People got carried away slamming both classes.&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=";)" />Nope, just go with a valor (or swords for the more DEX oriented fighters) bard.&nbsp; The fili, skald, and jongleur were the main influences going into the bard in the first place.&nbsp; That is why it's a spell caster that has some weapon and armor proficiencies, and better hit points than traditional arcane spell casters.There was never an edition that didn't have some of that martial influence.&nbsp; It's just that the martial aspects of a bard fall short compared to full martial classes, as they should.&nbsp; I'm here because I prefer D&amp;D to Pathfinder.&nbsp; Just sayin'.&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=";)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ashrym, post: 7862840, member: 6750235"] The main difference is in supporting others more. One of the reasons given, iirc, is that warlord style abilities were being covered by the battle master and / or valor bard. The sticking point was warlords had abilities that were non-magical and that's why some people loved them and other people hated them. Another issue is that 5e deliberately cut down on action economy and that affected a lot of 4e leader abilities, including the warlord. The battle master does have warlord-like qualities but it's clearly focused on the fighter / martial side of things instead of that leader role. Honestly, if the maneuvers included using the help action without costing an action, and allowing spending a hit die for healing (instead of needing a short rest) the battle master would be a lot closer in that representation because it does already have maneuvers to grant attacks or movement. It's just never going to be 4e because of other changes to the basic system. Bards are better at covering the concepts but that's because the concept was really a support role trying to hide behind the leader name. That still gets back to the nonmagical warlord so if a person really wants that support role to not be magical then the bard doesn't cut it. Plus the inherent fluff can be different but fluff is easy to change. And then it turned out people preferred the bards? Look were we are now. People got carried away slamming both classes. ;) Nope, just go with a valor (or swords for the more DEX oriented fighters) bard. The fili, skald, and jongleur were the main influences going into the bard in the first place. That is why it's a spell caster that has some weapon and armor proficiencies, and better hit points than traditional arcane spell casters. There was never an edition that didn't have some of that martial influence. It's just that the martial aspects of a bard fall short compared to full martial classes, as they should. I'm here because I prefer D&D to Pathfinder. Just sayin'. ;) [/QUOTE]

Verification