Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Fanaelialae" data-source="post: 8308928" data-attributes="member: 53980">No, I think it demonstrates that a warlord fits in just fine. Do we NEED a warlord? No. But we technically only need about 2 classes, the rest is &quot;fluff&quot;. I think people like having more variety than that in D&amp;D, and I think plenty of folks would enjoy having a warlord option (and for those that don't, just don't have that class in your games).The expert is maybe a little trickier. We already have expert classes in the bard and rogue. However, the scholar can (and IMO should) be more than just an expert. All of the classes in 5e have a special thing about them that thematically and mechanically distinguishes them. I don't think that's hard to do with a warlord (in fact, more than one design has been shown in this thread). I think that the scholar also has ample room for this (in fact, I think they did give the AiME version something, though I don't recollect the specifics ATM).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Fanaelialae, post: 8308928, member: 53980"] No, I think it demonstrates that a warlord fits in just fine. Do we NEED a warlord? No. But we technically only need about 2 classes, the rest is "fluff". I think people like having more variety than that in D&D, and I think plenty of folks would enjoy having a warlord option (and for those that don't, just don't have that class in your games). The expert is maybe a little trickier. We already have expert classes in the bard and rogue. However, the scholar can (and IMO should) be more than just an expert. All of the classes in 5e have a special thing about them that thematically and mechanically distinguishes them. I don't think that's hard to do with a warlord (in fact, more than one design has been shown in this thread). I think that the scholar also has ample room for this (in fact, I think they did give the AiME version something, though I don't recollect the specifics ATM). [/QUOTE]

Verification