Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bawylie" data-source="post: 7876504" data-attributes="member: 6776133">It would have made a great subclass if the basic classes were more narrowly designed. But since we have 3 different classes that are basically “a fighter plus gimmick” and 8 classes that are like “a wizard, but...” I don’t think the class/subclass divide is a convincing reason to put Warlord in column B instead of column A. Now, to change your mind. As popularized in 4E, the warlord filled a role in the party that was closer to cleric or bard than it was to fighter. I can’t (and don’t) speak for everyone, but it seems to me that a faithful 5E recreation of this 4E concept ought to try to emulate the feel that fans of the 4E warlord want now. A subclass (as they are now) doesn’t offer the depth or customization that fans of the warlord once had. If they wanted “a fighter plus gimmick” they’d have been satisfied with any of those offerings. Since they’re not, and continue to want a warlord class, it seems like we should start there. After all, if there is to BE a warlord in d&d, shouldn’t it be made in accordance with the wishes of those who actually want one in the game? I think so. It doesn’t strike me as reasonable to go “well we’ll do a warlord but design it for people who’d never play it or permit it in their games.” How’d I do?</blockquote>