Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 8308479" data-attributes="member: 87792">Which means that they share more than simple fluff words like "Primal" or "Defender". Which precisely none of the warlord attempts I've seen including my own do. Your objection to  the warlord therefore boils down to you not liking it because you have no experience of one in play and no vision of one. In a game where of eleven core classes six all have maximum level spellcasting and two have half-casting then if you care either about thematics or mechanical distinctiveness then yes it is tangible to gameplay.Absolutely, completely, 100% it would make them better. It wouldn't make them good - but it would give them much of their thematic and mechanical identity.Absolutely completely 100% there would be people who would be likely to play them if it added variety to the characters they could play without having to wade through a tedious spell list as long as that wasn't its only gimmick. People already ask for non-magical paladins.Also anyone who appreciates mechanical variety would appreciate a non-caster in a role that was dominated by casters with tedious and irrelevant spell lists.If it was done well it would also be appreciated by anyone who appreciates mechanical design and integration of design and thematics and played by many of them.And this in addition to the 4e fans glad to have it back. And people who want it for the style.</blockquote>