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: 8316965" data-attributes="member: 6795602">Sure, we cannot know 100% for certain.  I'm just saying the evidence definitely stacks up more in favor of the Battlemaster being meant to mechanically fulfill the 4e Warlord.  To recap, this is because they included 4e Warlord only effects for the 5e Battlemaster and because they haven't created a Warlord class in how many years?I mean it's still slightly better than the champion and still not as bad as a beastmaster ranger.  It failed to be the Warlord replacement that 4e fans wanted, but that was inevitable as they still don't actually know what they want.  I think the bigger issue is that it failed to be competitve with the warlordy battlemaster for most of the game - which is probably the bigger design issue.So part of our communication problem is that you keep wanting to talk mechanics in response to my talk about concept.  Conceptually a Warlord is a Warrior that leads.  So a Fighter with Leader abilities fits that bill.  What you actually want isn't anything that's different conceptually.  You want a different mechanical representation of that same concept.  I get that.  But I'm trying to bring up why maybe that isn't actually such a good idea.Eldritch Knight is explicitly a hybrid of Fighter and Wizard.  So the question as is doesn't make sense.  I'll adapt it to what I think you are trying to ask:Could we remove the Wizard class entirely, change the EK concept as listed for the Wizard concept and would that mechanically fulfill the concept of Wizard (not D&D Wizard, as that's rather a concept unto itself, but just a conceptual Wizard)?  Yes - although the weapons and armor and fighting stuff is a bit extraneous to Wizard so it's not a perfect match.Contrast a similar scenario with Warlord.  Suppose there was a Warlord class.  Could we remove that class entirely, change the Battlemaster concept as listed for the Warlord concept while simultaneously restricting maneuvers to the Warlordy ones, and would we be able to create a battlemaster that mechanically fulfills the concept of Warlord?  Yes - even better than the EK/Wizard, there's nothing mechanically extraneous.The question should be: is this concept representable by these mechanics?  I think you are way to focused on mechanical distinctions.  That drives you to make this a mechanics first question instead of a concept first question.Right now the Battlemaster can represent any leader from mediocre to expert.  Adding in a 'better leader' takes away at least some of that space.  That's a pretty trivial observation.Whatever the Warlord mechanics end up being, they are another untyped bonus that can stack with every other bonus already present in D&D.  This in general is why class bloat using alot of different mechanics for similar effects is bad.  Even adding another d8 to accuracy or skill checks could easily break bounded accuracy compared to what bards/rogues/casters can allow.I'll try to get to the rest later.</blockquote>

Verification