Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="jgsugden" data-source="post: 9133878" data-attributes="member: 2629">If all classes do the same things, then there is essentially only one class.&nbsp; Each class should have their own areas to shine.&nbsp; Thus, if you are going to have different classes, each class should have different capabilities - with different strengths and weaknesses.I am totally fine with the idea of a non-magical leader that buffs their allies through direction, tactics and strategy.&nbsp; However, that class should not be as good at melee combat as a fighter.&nbsp; They also should not just be a reskinned wizard.&nbsp; They need to be their own thing in order to have a real place in the game.So if you come at me with a martial class design that fights as well as a fighter, but gets other benefits not typical for a fighter but found more often on a spellcaster ... I'll say that is not a good design that fits in with the existing materials.&nbsp; It might be an Eldritch Knight equivalent, or it may just be a gish that is overpowered.&nbsp; We can do better.If you come at me with a warlord design that is less capable in melee combat than a fighter, but can do things with their leadership that we often see in magical classes (such as equivalents to bless, calm emotions, haste, etc...), I'll look to see if they're really filling a new role - or if they're just a reskinned wizard.There is room for a martial leader class.&nbsp; We saw it in 4E.&nbsp; We do not have it in core 5E.&nbsp; However, what you describd in the initial post - at first blush - would not fill a gap IMHO, and I'd recommend going back to the drawing board to greater differentiate it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="jgsugden, post: 9133878, member: 2629"] If all classes do the same things, then there is essentially only one class. Each class should have their own areas to shine. Thus, if you are going to have different classes, each class should have different capabilities - with different strengths and weaknesses. I am totally fine with the idea of a non-magical leader that buffs their allies through direction, tactics and strategy. However, that class should not be as good at melee combat as a fighter. They also should not just be a reskinned wizard. They need to be their own thing in order to have a real place in the game. So if you come at me with a martial class design that fights as well as a fighter, but gets other benefits not typical for a fighter but found more often on a spellcaster ... I'll say that is not a good design that fits in with the existing materials. It might be an Eldritch Knight equivalent, or it may just be a gish that is overpowered. We can do better. If you come at me with a warlord design that is less capable in melee combat than a fighter, but can do things with their leadership that we often see in magical classes (such as equivalents to bless, calm emotions, haste, etc...), I'll look to see if they're really filling a new role - or if they're just a reskinned wizard. There is room for a martial leader class. We saw it in 4E. We do not have it in core 5E. However, what you describd in the initial post - at first blush - would not fill a gap IMHO, and I'd recommend going back to the drawing board to greater differentiate it. [/QUOTE]

Verification