D&D 5E The Warlord shouldn't be a class... change my mind!

[Tony Vargas]

. Look at 3E; so many of the extra classes after the PHB could have been subclasses if its class system allowed for that level of customization.

If anything, 3e was more customizable. In some cases it was about the same: wizards for instance had 8 specialties, just like the 8 traditions. In others, like the fighter and sorcerer, you could build to concept without waiting for a sub-class.

 

[Prakriti]

(I do like Warrior as a class name better than Fighter, but I doubt we're going to get another class name change after 3E)

Maybe not for any of the core classes, but the developers were really close to naming the Psion the "Mystic" for a while there. I'm glad they seem to have changed their mind.

I could live with "Warrior" in place of "Fighter," but "Expert" in place of "Rogue" (or in any other context) makes my skin crawl.

 

[Xeviat]

Maybe not for any of the core classes, but the developers were really close to naming the Psion the "Mystic" for a while there. I'm glad they seem to have changed their mind.

I could live with "Warrior" in place of "Fighter," but "Expert" in place of "Rogue" (or in any other context) makes my skin crawl.

I actually really liked "Mystic" instead of "Psion". It helps to step away from the perceived line between sci-fi and fantasy. But, it's not a hill I'd die on, and I didn't really like putting Wu Jen under the Psion's umbrella when it feels like it could be a Wizard tradition.

I don't like Expert instead of Rogue at all, unless we're doing a big broad system (then something about the rotational similarities between the first letters of Expert, Mage, and Warrior, and the number 3, tickles me: 3 classes, E, M, W.)

But Rogue was Thief, and that's been an improvement. Fighter could become Warrior and take the Warlord's stuff. "Warrior" has connotations that could fuel more material for the fighter ... but the Barbarian is a Warrior too and that would get weird (but, then again, everyone Fights ...).

 

[Xeviat]

If anything, 3e was more customizable. In some cases it was about the same: wizards for instance had 8 specialties, just like the 8 traditions. In others, like the fighter and sorcerer, you could build to concept without waiting for a sub-class.

I mean ... I guess? Technically?

 

[Garthanos]

For me, if a Captain subclass gave options to use in place of an attack, or that add to an attack, as part of the attack action, then a lot of that becomes leadery. Extra attack isn’t a DPR overload if you can use it to grant attacks or give bonuses.

This is probably a fundamental component - skilled superiority was my idea of a way of leveraging what is already there in the Battlemaster.

 

[Azzy]

Gatekeeping.

"I don't like X, so X shouldn't be part of the game."

Pretty much.

 

[generic]

Pretty much.

As always.

 

[Shades of Eternity]

Then I will counter the gatekeeping with a quote from the rpg academy.

"If you are having fun, you're doing it right."

 

[generic]

Then I will counter the gatekeeping with a quote from the rpg academy.

"If you are having fun, you're doing it right."

nerd brain malfunctions

can't handle exception

Users/User?/D&D IDE 3.0/Codebreak?/Error = Compiler error

But, but, you're playing incorrectly

 

[Urriak Uruk]

I, for one, am not opposed to more options, I just want those options to be concise and tightened up. Look at 3E; so many of the extra classes after the PHB could have been subclasses if its class system allowed for that level of customization. It's not less options, because I'm giddy to get new and better subclasses. I want classes to be big things. Initially, I didn't like the idea of the Artificer, but some explanations here helped me to see that it was a character archetype that wasn't quite served by what we have.

As of right now, I just feel like the Fighter could be improved by the inclusion of the Warlord archetype. Without the Warlord being part of the Fighter, the Fighter feels like it also holds an "NPC Class" within it (I know 5E doesn't have NPC classes; I miss them).

The lead from the rear, lazylord, and noble type Warlords are the crux that makes me think the Warlord might need to be it's own class. Those character types are fun, and the Rogue and Fighter both have too many class abilities that wouldn't really suit them.

Always nice to have someone else more concisely summarize my thoughts better than I can do myself.

I'll add that I still don't find the "lazylord" concept one that truly matches D&D. Most of the character examples people cite, like Robin Hood, Odysseus, or Captain America, are still effective combatants without the "inspiration" abilities, and not truly lazylords. I don't truly understand what a lazylord really would look like in a D&D adventuring party.

However I do admit that just because I don't personally understand the point of the lazylord, that doesn't mean other people wouldn't like it...