NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6743923" data-attributes="member: 996">It's also arguable whether it was even really a D&D class.  I'd love to see /more/ from the 5e Warlord than from the 4e.  The 4e warlord is just a minimum 5e needs to shoot for - and hopefully surpass.Sure, that's why there was no edition war.  No one objected to a new edition changing & improving D&D.  ...Oh, wait.That's exactly what it leads to.  If you didn't like the only version of the class the game ever presented, you wouldn't be a fan of that class.  You might like it and want /more/ from it, as well, certainly...And take more feats ('small' feats, remember) to swap in other exploits if you wanted to.  It's just sort of dipping a toe in, but still remaining essentially whatever your other class is.  A battlemaster or PDK is still very much a fighter, a tough, high-DPR multi-attacking weapon-user.  A mastermind is still very much a Rogue, a sneak-attacking skill specialist.As an actual fan of the Warlord, I don't feel too bad about that.  I may be more vocal, I may be a little bit more motivated than other Warlord fans who find one or more existing 5e classes worth playing, but, at least I have an idea where we're coming from.We don't have a Warlord class in 5e yet, that's not a matter of opinion or perspective.  It's what this whole temporary forum is about.  Frequent less than legitimate use of a term doesn't invalidate legitimate use.  Not in the least, no.  And, are they even your words, or are you just referencing things others have said?'Healing' in the sense of making wounds magically disappear, sure.  Not what the Warlord does.  Take another imaginary nickle out of petty cash. That is, indeed, one reason.It shouldn't be a major issue, it's just something 4e actually did.  4e Sources were more granular, but 5e still has a distinction between magic, the supernatural not-magic of psionics, and the abilities of the handful of sub-classes without any supernatural abilities.  That there are classes that primarily have magic, primarily have psionics, and don't have either at all, means that there needs to be some 5e-style balance (not much, just enough that the DM can keep each character relevant, some of the time) among those three Source-like, but not-Source divisions.</blockquote>

Verification