Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7877860" data-attributes="member: 996">Class-based systems limit some concepts and pad out others.&nbsp; The warlord was one of the limited ones.&nbsp; As nicely as it worked for balance and party-building, Role limited what a single class could do, even with 'secondary roles.'&nbsp; That's why being great at archery had to be split off from the fighter to the all-martial ranger, because it was too striker (&amp; they couldn't think of a way to make it defender). 5e class designs aren't limited by role (they're brutally limited by tradition, in the case of the fighter, obviously), a neo-Vancian caster can load up to go heavy on control, or blasting, or support, or be ready for all three with less depth in each, and cast spontaneously in whatever proportion the evolving day demands.The Warlord concept called for a very adaptable set of abilities that could, in different ways, be applied to either allies or enemies.&nbsp; But, the latter would have stepped on the controller role, so it was tightlyAll true.Except for the highly inappropriate use of 'caster' to describe a maneuver-based class, that might be a class the Warlord could be a sub-class of.&nbsp; Something with as much more and more varied and more powerful and higher-level-gated maneuvers than the BM as the wizard stands above the EK.&nbsp; The various Warlord builds &amp; flavors could be archetypes of that, as could the weaponmaster fighter's builds &amp;c, the spell-less ranger, martial artists, and so forth.Of course, that's a lot to ask for one class, it'd be like expecting to have a single divine caster covering the Cleric, Paladin, Druid and Ranger, and a single arcane class covering the Wizard, Sorcerer, Bard and Warlock.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7877860, member: 996"] Class-based systems limit some concepts and pad out others. The warlord was one of the limited ones. As nicely as it worked for balance and party-building, Role limited what a single class could do, even with 'secondary roles.' That's why being great at archery had to be split off from the fighter to the all-martial ranger, because it was too striker (& they couldn't think of a way to make it defender). 5e class designs aren't limited by role (they're brutally limited by tradition, in the case of the fighter, obviously), a neo-Vancian caster can load up to go heavy on control, or blasting, or support, or be ready for all three with less depth in each, and cast spontaneously in whatever proportion the evolving day demands. The Warlord [I]concept[/I] called for a very adaptable set of abilities that could, in different ways, be applied to either allies or enemies. But, the latter would have stepped on the controller role, so it was tightly All true. Except for the highly inappropriate use of 'caster' to describe a maneuver-based class, [I]that[/I] might be a class the Warlord could be a sub-class of. Something with as much more and more varied and more powerful and higher-level-gated [I]maneuvers[/I] than the BM as the wizard stands above the EK. The various Warlord builds & flavors could be archetypes of that, as could the weaponmaster fighter's builds &c, the spell-less ranger, martial artists, and so forth. Of course, that's a lot to ask for one class, it'd be like expecting to have a single divine caster covering the Cleric, Paladin, Druid and Ranger, and a single arcane class covering the Wizard, Sorcerer, Bard and Warlock. [/QUOTE]

Verification