Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Don Durito" data-source="post: 7876522" data-attributes="member: 6687260">There seems to be a divide in any case between what people who want the Warlord actually want.Some want the 4E warlord as it was actually designed to be run.&nbsp; Able to hand out healing, movement buffs and attacks while stiff being an effective combatant.Others want the lazylord - an emergent build which emerged by being able to string a lot of warlord abilities that granted attacks to others together and dump strength.&nbsp; This allowed you to reskin the warlord as effectively a complete non-combatant character but with the player still having contributions to make during combat.The first can easily fit in D&amp;D provided you have a combat system that can handle the tactical depth.&nbsp; Rob Schwalbe made a version of the 4E class that's up on DMs guild that's almost&nbsp; straight conversion.&nbsp; If it's unsatisying it's unsatisfying in the same way the Battlemaster fighter is unsastisfying in comparison to the 4E fighter - all the tactical depth has been moved into spellcasting and magic.&nbsp; But there's no reason this class could not be core.&nbsp; It could be folded back into Fighter sure - but then so could Barbarian and Paladin.&nbsp; Ultimately I don't see the point of arguing for it one way or another - it depends on the ecology of the whole class system and whether it goes big or small - I will say that I can't see a good reason why Warlod specifically cannot justify a class - it's at least a good hook as 'warrior who flips out and gets really angry&quot;.The lazylord is probably a lot move divisive.&nbsp; I personally would not want to see it as a core class - and don't really think it belongs in D&amp;D.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Don Durito, post: 7876522, member: 6687260"] There seems to be a divide in any case between what people who want the Warlord actually want. Some want the 4E warlord as it was actually designed to be run. Able to hand out healing, movement buffs and attacks while stiff being an effective combatant. Others want the lazylord - an emergent build which emerged by being able to string a lot of warlord abilities that granted attacks to others together and dump strength. This allowed you to reskin the warlord as effectively a complete non-combatant character but with the player still having contributions to make during combat. The first can easily fit in D&D provided you have a combat system that can handle the tactical depth. Rob Schwalbe made a version of the 4E class that's up on DMs guild that's almost straight conversion. If it's unsatisying it's unsatisfying in the same way the Battlemaster fighter is unsastisfying in comparison to the 4E fighter - all the tactical depth has been moved into spellcasting and magic. But there's no reason this class could not be core. It could be folded back into Fighter sure - but then so could Barbarian and Paladin. Ultimately I don't see the point of arguing for it one way or another - it depends on the ecology of the whole class system and whether it goes big or small - I will say that I can't see a good reason why Warlod specifically cannot justify a class - it's at least a good hook as 'warrior who flips out and gets really angry". The lazylord is probably a lot move divisive. I personally would not want to see it as a core class - and don't really think it belongs in D&D. [/QUOTE]

Verification