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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6743806" data-attributes="member: 996">The Ranger design has, by the designers own admission, lost its way.  There have been multiple versions of the ranger, ranging (npi) from non-caster to casting from low level on, and from personal-combat focused to 'pet'-focused, and that's just scratching the surface.  A fan of the 1e Ranger may want a Ranger very different from what a fan of the 3e would want, while a fan of the 4e ranger would expect something completely different.Not the case with the Warlord, which has had only one incarnation - even though it was rather broad in the concepts it could do, it did all of them.They're about equivalent to an Knight or Slayer or Thief with the Student of Battle feat in Essentials+.  Fans of MCing a tiny bit of Warlord into their eFighter or eRogue might appreciate them (honestly, I've never seen anyone do that, but I'm sure someone, somewhere, must have done so for some build).  Fans of the actual Warlord, not so much.  If you want to play the full class, tiny fragments of it aren't very satisfying.It is the only version of the class in a past edition of D&D that 5e can use as a model and goal for what the 5e Warlord should be like, in general and at minimum.  That's as far as it goes.  There's certainly potential for doing more with the class, over and above that.It's certainly run into problems doing that in the past.  Problems like the edition war.Both true.  In fact, we have every right to hope for that.  But it hasn't happened yet, and it's not going to get there by failing to model the concepts the Warlord has handled, nor failing to make the same sorts of contributions to the party's success that it could.</blockquote>

Verification