NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 5819983" data-attributes="member: 996">Well.  Yes.I think the Warlord deserves to be it's own class.  But, if it were rolled up into the fighter, and you had defender fighters (knights), leader fighters (warlords), striker fighters (slayers) and controller fighters (soldiers), it would be nice if each of them, not just the warlord, got to be competent out of combat.Same goes for all characters of all classes.  You're adventuring, you should be able to handle adedventuring.  That means everybody contributes meaningfully in combat, when exploring dungeons or caverns or enchanted woods or whatever, or when interacting in adventuring situations (which can be pretty varied, obviously, but might reasonably not include some of the more obtuse 'social' scenarios).  If you can't handle yourself in a fight, or scaling a cavern wall, or around important people, you shouldn't have become an adventurer, because you're going to get yourself killed (stabbed, defenestrated or executed as the case may be).A mage may deal with the cavern wall by having feather fall on tap, or the dapper con man handle himself in a fight using feints and sneak attacks, or the knight-champion fighter might rely on his reputation over social graces, wit and charm.  Each class is different, but each class remains viable.  Balance within each of the three pillars is really no different from balance in combat (which 4e did well).  Balanced <> identical.  (Very different then the 'everyone is exactly as good at doing everything in every arena' straw man that keeps getting repeated in this thread).</blockquote>

Verification