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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 8316925" data-attributes="member: 6795602">IMO this shows the conceptual issue I keep bringing up.  Right now the Battlemaster due to being the only Leader in town covers every leader concept from mediocre leader to elite leader.  By insisting that a better mechanical leader exist you are not increasing conceptual space, so much transferring some of the Fighters conceptual space to the 'Warlord'.This is why concepts shouldn't get thought of in terms of better or worse - because for every mechanical representation of a concept, we can always think of one better or one worse.If you get how that diminishes the concept then you can see why that is a big loss.I think it's a design choice sums this up very nicely.I think happy is the wrong word.  Serviceable is better.It's not my only objection.  It's one of many.Let me phrase it this way.  Conceptually, what makes a Battlemaster focused on leadership Manuevers not a 'leader first'?Why surprised?  I've said many times I don't think battlemaster manuevers do a great job mechanically for a leader.  Too many here have conflated my position on mechanics with my position on concept. While being able to fulfill the concept due to getting most all of the mechanical tools that are needed the battlemaster's leadership abilities fail to deliver as cohesive of a package around the concept of martial leader that I would like. What I'm arguing about here is that there are pros and cons to trying to fix this 'problem' via the addition of another class and that maybe this is just a flaw of 5e that no good viable solution exists for.  I'd bet you that most involved in this discussion have tried to create their own warlords in years past.  I know I have.  But that's because I was treating classes as a package of mechanics instead of concept first.  So yes, I understand and I'm saying there is another way to think about things.Sure, and I'd love for it to work out for him.  Homebrew serves a different purpose than official classes IMO. I'm saying that concepts shouldn't really be qualified with 'elite' or 'good'.  IMO Concepts just exist independent of their relative 'eliteness' or 'goodness'.  Then hybrid concepts are just some mixture of 2 concepts.  EK is an example of this.  Bladesinger might be as well.But unlike the EK, the 'Warlord' in any conception isn't a hybrid of leader only and warrior only, he's always a warrior that's a leader.</blockquote>

Verification