Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Crimson Longinus" data-source="post: 9140782" data-attributes="member: 7025508">The reason I'm not that keen on warlord as a separate class, is that to me in stories such leader characters are often evolution of some sort of warrior or soldier character type and tend to be "high-level" characters. And in D&D it used to be that high level fighters became lords and leaders of men. I.e. warlords. Low level warlord really isn't a concept that makes much sense to me, and making it a separate class removes it as potential evolution of the fighter, which is where I feel it should be. In this thread and many others there has been plenty of complaints about fighters, but one reason why they are just dum dums that hit things that other concepts have been siloed into their own classes. Now 5e doesn't do leadery fighter terribly well, and I don't think all high level fighters should become "warlords" but I think that should be a path that exists for them.Furthermore, I feel that people are way too stuck to the exact 4e interpretation of the concept. You can do the concept differntly, it doesn't need to be exactly the same.</blockquote>