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: 6750185" data-attributes="member: 996">Since 5e isn't ever likely to have a PH2 or Martial Power, PH1-only seems like a reasonable touchstone for comparison.In some ways, yes.  Then again, the conversion documents suggests that 4e levels are 2/3rds of a 5e level.  In any case, the 1st vs 3rd comparison is still 192 permutations of the 4e PH1-only, 1st-level Warlord, vs 5 (PDK + 4 possible Battlemasters) warlord-like permutations of the 5e Fighter at 3rd level.The Warlord is needed for a number of reasons, for some of them, like being an adequate primary or sole source of support functions for a party (to enable an all-martial or low-/no- magic campaign, a playstyle that is not currently well-supported) that means needing to exist at 1st level, yes.  The idea is that Warlord as a class name has been, and should remain, descriptive rather than indicating position or profession.  If a character's talents are primarily in leadership skills, tactics, and the like, then Warlord is appropriate, from 1st level.  The class doesn't imply position, authority or past accomplishment.  Of course, a Background can provide those elements if they're desired - a Soldier has past experience in the military and holds a rank, a Noble has a position in society that comes with some authority.Now, the PDK /does/ imply specific position & authority, as a Knight of Cormyr in the FR setting, and would actually have been a good candidate for a PrC, if PrCs had been in the works when AGSC was in development...</blockquote>

Verification