Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6731262" data-attributes="member: 996">Stop and think about how /you/ sound.I'd picture a Warlord having d8 HD, and no at-will Extra Attacks.&nbsp; That's what corresponds most closely to the original concept of the class, since it wasn't a 'striker' at all.&nbsp; Extra Attacks would have been very much a striker features, and a problematic one, at that.&nbsp;&nbsp; One reason the Fighter doesn't work as a chassis for the Warlord is that too much of it's features are tied up in consistent DPR and toughness far in excess of what the Warlord needs to do 24/7.When people throw out ideas, you can conceivably imagine /all/ those ideas being used, while ignoring ideas about how they might be limited, and come to that conclusion.&nbsp; You'd be way off base in doing that, since the class is not being designed by committee on the boards, we're just trying to spur WotC to develop it, and they'll hopefully put as much effort into and enjoy as much success balancing the Warlord as they have with the other classes.&nbsp; Besides, DMs are Empowered to deal with any balance issues that slip through.&nbsp; It's not a meaningful concern. I think you're looking at it from a certain point of view that prevents you from seeing it clearly.&nbsp; The reality is that a direct port of a 4e Warlord (any 4e AEDU class, really), would be wildly under-powered in 5e.&nbsp; 5e has vastly increased the flexibility and availability of daily resources - which all the extant 5e support classes use heavily, and any implementation of the Warlord concept would have to be balanced against that, building from the concept to be viable in 5e, whether being constricted by the obsolete confines of AEDU and Role.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6731262, member: 996"] Stop and think about how /you/ sound. I'd picture a Warlord having d8 HD, and no at-will Extra Attacks. That's what corresponds most closely to the original concept of the class, since it wasn't a 'striker' at all. Extra Attacks would have been very much a striker features, and a problematic one, at that. One reason the Fighter doesn't work as a chassis for the Warlord is that too much of it's features are tied up in consistent DPR and toughness far in excess of what the Warlord needs to do 24/7. When people throw out ideas, you can conceivably imagine /all/ those ideas being used, while ignoring ideas about how they might be limited, and come to that conclusion. You'd be way off base in doing that, since the class is not being designed by committee on the boards, we're just trying to spur WotC to develop it, and they'll hopefully put as much effort into and enjoy as much success balancing the Warlord as they have with the other classes. Besides, DMs are Empowered to deal with any balance issues that slip through. It's not a meaningful concern. I think you're looking at it from a certain point of view that prevents you from seeing it clearly. The reality is that a direct port of a 4e Warlord (any 4e AEDU class, really), would be wildly under-powered in 5e. 5e has vastly increased the flexibility and availability of daily resources - which all the extant 5e support classes use heavily, and any implementation of the Warlord concept would have to be balanced against that, building from the concept to be viable in 5e, whether being constricted by the obsolete confines of AEDU and Role. [/QUOTE]

Verification