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: 6755481" data-attributes="member: 996">Neither am I, which is why I said 'maybe.'  In essence you're proposing replacing 3 or more existing classes and one hypothetical class with two paragraphs of optional rules.  I'm a little hesitant to outright endorse that, and the point is really whether it's hypothetically possible to obviate the need for a support class entirely by adding some universal options that let PCs 'support themselves' as it were.  I acknowledge that it is theoretically possible.  Different is getting your party's support from a complex/flexible class like a Bard vs getting it from a Cleric vs getting it from a hypothetically complex/flexible enough (though probably less so than a full caster) Warlord.  Having all those choices is a lot more complete than having a set of rules that obviate the need for support, for one thing, because you can have support-class concepts.In other words, it can't be done now, with the game as it stands, only by adding to it.  The Warlord, then, could fill that need.  So could arbitrary rule changes that remove the need for support entirely.  So could a hypothetical Marshal, or Field Medic, or anything that arbitrarily didn't 'use magic' and provided support.  Those quibbles don't obviate the need, just shift the goalposts around a bit to avoid admitting the need is there and that the Warlord would fill both that need, and others - including the tautological 'need' for the Warlord because people (even if some us us were 4vengers) want to play it, which, alone, should have been enough.</blockquote>

Verification