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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Oofta" data-source="post: 9133749" data-attributes="member: 6801845">A few random thoughts on this. First, I have no problems with people playing fighters and wizards up to 20th level.  Yes, the wizard can go nova, but the fighter is the energizer bunny that just keeps going and going hacking and slashing.  I played a way of mercy monk in one of my previous campaigns and now another player wants to play a monk and my wife is planning on playing one in the campaign I run because they were so effective.As far as the warlord, I don't really pay much attention to custom classes but there are plenty of ways to run a support style character.  Bard, cleric, variations of wizard or even the battle master fighter if they focus on helping others.  Heck, a totem barbarian with a wolf totem grants advantage to attacks for everyone, not exactly a warlord (whatever that would be) but still more of a supporting other players style of play.  I guess I just don't see that much of a need for a warlord, especially when you throw in multi classing.  So if you just take a fighter and then add on a bunch of extras on top without taking away anything, of course it's going to be overpowered.There's never going to be enough options for some people.  I don't have an issue with a warlord per se but I also don't see that big of a gap in the current options that it's necessary.  It's kind of like how they've floated a half dozen or so options for psionics, but despite multiple people clamoring for it, those people rarely agree on what it should actually do or be.  When I play a fighter, I want them to be a fighter.  Even if that means that, like my Rune Knight I played recently, they get a few extra benefits. What I don't want is for them to be something they aren't.  One of the the things they are not is a warlord.</blockquote>

Verification