Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7018657" data-attributes="member: 996">That could work for either a fighter or rogue sub-class, or both, 5e's handling of finesse is so much more straightforward.&nbsp; The key might be a combat style or feat or something that works best with finesse weapons, and another with thrown weapons - AFAIK, those groups intersect at the dagger.&nbsp; Thrown weapons in general could use a little more, too.&nbsp;A Warlord would take a full class.&nbsp; The PDK is an example of how far short fighter archetypes fall of handling the concept.&nbsp; The fighter chassis is just too focused on DPR &amp; toughness to leave room for everything a Warlord would need - without pulling back on those basics a little, any archetype packed with enough functionality to hold a candle to the original Warlord (let alone explore what might be done with the concept without the restriction of formal Roles*) would completely overshadow other fighters like the PDK &amp; BM.OTOH, I wonder if some 'monk' (ie martial-artist) concepts couldn't work well as a fighter archetype.&nbsp;The Sorcerer probably has the greatest need for new sub-classes.* The Warlord was a 'Leader' / secondary-defender for the most part, and a lot of it's powers (like a lot of martial powers) were clearly toned down or limited to avoid stepping on the Controller Role.&nbsp; In 5e, there'd be no need for that, and the concept could be more fully explored.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7018657, member: 996"] That could work for either a fighter or rogue sub-class, or both, 5e's handling of finesse is so much more straightforward. The key might be a combat style or feat or something that works best with finesse weapons, and another with thrown weapons - AFAIK, those groups intersect at the dagger. Thrown weapons in general could use a little more, too. A Warlord would take a full class. The PDK is an example of how far short fighter archetypes fall of handling the concept. The fighter chassis is just too focused on DPR & toughness to leave room for everything a Warlord would need - without pulling back on those basics a little, any archetype packed with enough functionality to hold a candle to the original Warlord (let alone explore what might be done with the concept without the restriction of formal Roles*) would completely overshadow other fighters like the PDK & BM. OTOH, I wonder if some 'monk' (ie martial-artist) concepts couldn't work well as a fighter archetype. The Sorcerer probably has the greatest need for new sub-classes. * The Warlord was a 'Leader' / secondary-defender for the most part, and a lot of it's powers (like a lot of martial powers) were clearly toned down or limited to avoid stepping on the Controller Role. In 5e, there'd be no need for that, and the concept could be more fully explored. [/QUOTE]

Verification