Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="SteveC" data-source="post: 9137003" data-attributes="member: 9053">Round and round, it really does look like the discussion that we've been having, well, forever. I was reading the thread and thinking about it in light of what the OP was actually talking about and I think you could absolutely have a warlord class that would be absolutely awesome and better than, say, a champion fighter.This is because there are already classes (and other fighter subclasses!) that do this and people still play champions. People go out of their way to defend the champion. So really, why not make a new warlord class? I suspect that WotC has a real reason for it that doesn't involve balance at all. I'd suspect that it's because the abilities the warlord would have move into the realm of the cleric or bard or other supernatural characters. Now I'd argue that there are fighters who've already moved into that realm so I'm truly left at a loss for why WotC doesn't do it.So there's no reason not to make that warlord. My problem is that none of the DMs I play with would use homebrew classes, so I couldn't play one. And that's a shame because the lazy warlord I played was amazing. And not unbalanced with other characters from that edition.So I understand the arguments that people are having about the really small design space you have when you want to trade out something like improved critical, which is not exceptionally useful on a non-multiclass fighter, to get ... spellcasting? I get that, but it seems that WotC doesn't use this metric themselves to balance classes. How they do balance them would be a very interesting discussion that I have yet to hear.</blockquote>

Verification