Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Cap'n Kobold" data-source="post: 8317369" data-attributes="member: 6802951">Because although the bard conceptually doesn't fit (it uses magic), thematically (leader that can fight but main strength lies in improving others) and mechanically (abilities boost companions in a number of ways) it is a match for the warlord.Unlike the fighter, the power of a warlord does not lie in their personal damage potential, but by how they improve their companion's power. Thus the abilities rather than attack rolls are the focus of the class - just like a full caster.&nbsp;Why compared with a Fighter? Its a closer match to the Bard. In fact, why not compare to all the classes rather than just one?Because you're not &quot;both a top tier warrior and a top tier leader&quot;. You're a top-tier warrior: 5 out of 5 certainly.However Battlemasters are hardly &quot;top tier leaders&quot;. They're 2/5, maybe 3 if they're willing to drop their warriorness tier.Wizards are probably 3/5, clerics a 4, and the top-tier leader class would be bards at 5/5.Hence the wish for a martial Warrior 2 or 3 and Leader 4 or 5, which cannot currently be achieved.As long as the class is less powerful than the most powerful other choices, its not breaking any balance.A new class should be less powerful than the most powerful class, and ideally around the mid-point of all the D&amp;D classes. There is no particular reason to try to aim at the mid-point of a rather arbitrary subdivision. Particularly when thematically the class does not fit into that division.Is there a particular reason that, having established that Fighters and Rogues are extraordinary, we should start demanding &quot;But only in combat&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Cap'n Kobold, post: 8317369, member: 6802951"] Because although the bard conceptually doesn't fit (it uses magic), thematically (leader that can fight but main strength lies in improving others) and mechanically (abilities boost companions in a number of ways) it is a match for the warlord. Unlike the fighter, the power of a warlord does not lie in their personal damage potential, but by how they improve their companion's power. Thus the abilities rather than attack rolls are the focus of the class - just like a full caster. Why compared with a Fighter? Its a closer match to the Bard. In fact, why not compare to all the classes rather than just one? Because you're [B][I]not [/I][/B][I]"both a top tier warrior and a top tier leader"[/I]. You're a top-tier warrior: 5 out of 5 certainly. However Battlemasters are hardly "top tier leaders". They're 2/5, maybe 3 if they're willing to drop their warriorness tier. Wizards are probably 3/5, clerics a 4, and the top-tier leader class would be bards at 5/5. Hence the wish for a martial Warrior 2 or 3 and Leader 4 or 5, which cannot currently be achieved. As long as the class is less powerful than the most powerful other choices, its not breaking any balance. A new class should be less powerful than the most powerful class, and ideally around the mid-point of all the D&D classes. There is no particular reason to try to aim at the mid-point of a rather arbitrary subdivision. Particularly when thematically the class does not fit into that division. Is there a particular reason that, having established that Fighters and Rogues are extraordinary, we should start demanding "But only in combat". [/QUOTE]

Verification