Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="bert1001 fka bert1000" data-source="post: 8313779" data-attributes="member: 7029588">It's the result of the implementation -- not fulfilling the concept of a Warlord/leaderly character whose impact is much more on the Warlord/martial leaderly side than on the swinging sword side.#1 Current 5e Battlemaster by picking the leaderly maneuvers and feats (1-5 scale, 5 is great):Weapon beating prowess = 4; Martial leaderly prowess = 3People are asking for a character that is #2:Weapon beating prowess = 2 or 3; Martial leaderly prowess = 5Same impact but in different ways.This seems like a pretty reasonable ask -- "I want to play a character than leans a lot more heavily on the martial leaderly and less on martial fighting than the current Battlemaster". Maybe for many #1 is just fine for leaderly stuff, but surely you can envision a character with better/more martial leaderly options than exist today?So you create the Warlord that is primarily/defined by martial leading (granting actions, buff/debuff, temporary HPs, shifting battlefield, tactical bonuses for team actions, etc.) and can fall back on lesser (but not worthless) sword swings or archery when needed. And if we go totally crazy, maybe the Warlord has a few out of combat options built in as well based on INT, CHA, or WIS flavor of leader.You can also play the Battlemaster with Fighter like sword swings, and significant but not defining leaderly stuff though maneuvers and feats.Everybody wins...I'm less concerned with how it gets modeled in mechanics, but it seems like by definition the leaderly stuff has to go beyond what the current Battlemaster can do with maneuvers and feats.   Thus something has to be taken away somewhere else. Which is why people are talking about potentially a new class.</blockquote>

Verification