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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 9133802" data-attributes="member: 996">TBF, I doubt any hypothetical Warlord has ever peen proposed that would have "all the same abilities as a Wizard"rather,In this case, he's even suggesting that the Warlord get spells (tho, y'know, a Fighter sub-class in the PH does get spells, already), just "powerful cool abilities" - they might be maneuvers, like a souped up BM, they might be something else, entirely. <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="🤷" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f937.png" title="Person shrugging    :person_shrugging:" data-shortname=":person_shrugging:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" />Personally, I think Cleric or Bard would be a better point of comparison, but it's a hopeless case, the Warlord, in 5e.  It's design space has generally been colonized, or razed & salted. Whether it's a fallacy or not, I think the basic issue the OP is getting at is just the entrenchment of the Martial/Caster Gap (npi).  People are able to claim, with a straight face, that the Fighter (or Rogue or Barbarian) is equal to the Wizard (or Cleric, Druid, etc), but, when it comes to introducing a new martial class that even approaches the utility of a full caster, it's deemed "OP"That judgement can't come from comparison to the yet-more-powerful full casters, it can only come from comparison to the benighted non-casters.That's a double standard.  (Which does not seem to be a named fallacy that I could quickly find, formal or informal, so there's that)</blockquote>

Verification