Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Xeviat" data-source="post: 7884918" data-attributes="member: 57494">Maaaaaybe ...Where as Fighter could be any role depending on subclass.</blockquote>You'd have to completely re-build it from the ground up.  As it stands, the 5e Fighter is hard-coded striker,  not much wiggle-room.[/QUOTE]Definitely! I'm speaking in theoretical concepts right now. Right now, I'm entertaining 2 requirements that a class needs before it can be it's own class: a significant number of concepts that can fit under the one umbrella, and that it isn't already under the umbrella of another class. At the moment, I feel like the fighter's umbrella is big enough to cover the warlord, even though the warlord's umbrella is big enough to cover multiple concepts. Those multiple warlord concepts could just be from choice of individual "powers" under a warlord subclass, but that could just be my 4E mind still being based around powers.Hey now, no getting crazy! jkI'm very open to being convinced. Recently, I convinced myself that the Sorcerer and Warlock should be combined, and I was sold on the Artificer being a separate class because it really didn't fit in with the Rogue or Wizard. So I'm open. Here's my thoughts on what the non-spellcasters are, which will help me to see where the Warlord might fit in.Barbarian: A warrior who fights with rage and instinct rather than techniques.Fighter: A warrior skilled with arms and armor who fights with learned techniques.Monk: A warrior fueled by their mystical inner power.Rogue: A trickster who fights with deception and other techniques rather than a stand-up fight.Warlord: A warrior who, though tactics or inspiration, fights by making their allies better.Okay, so the base concept is solid enough to differentiate it from the others. And there are warlord types, like the Noble, lazylord, or lead from the rear types, that wouldn't quite fit under the without subsequently making the Rogue bigger.Clearly, something is making me hesitant. Likely, it's something about tradition.I still think the Warlord and the Bard occupy too much of the same space. But then again, the cleric and druid, and the sorcerer and wizard occupy much of the same space too.I'm nearly convinced.How would you try to convince me that feeding the Warlord to the Fighter wouldn't improve the Fighter, without pointing out that the same could be done for the Barbarian or Rogue?[/QUOTE]

Verification