Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6670254" data-attributes="member: 22779">Got a few minutes more.&nbsp; So, I'll add this:Warlords are meant to have high Cha, so, right off the bat, &quot;Leader of men&quot; makes sense, whereas taking a high Cha actively hurts a 5e fighter.&nbsp; Warlords start off with Diplomacy and History as class skills making them fit the &quot;Captain&quot; archetype much better.&nbsp; Captains should be educated individuals with broad knowledge.&nbsp; And diplomacy is a must.&nbsp; In 5e, none of the fighter skills speak to this.&nbsp; Warlords, as Combat leader give allies +2 to initiative, or as a Canny Leader grant +2 to insight and Perception.&nbsp; What bonuses does a 5e fighter confer to allies?Now, I will totally admit that warlord powers probably aren't all that useful.&nbsp; I think I am mistaken in remembering powers which gave bonuses to skill checks.&nbsp; My bad.&nbsp; To fair though, I'm not sure why you are arguing with me KM.&nbsp; The whole point of warlording the fighter is to create a fighter archetype that fits the mold of commander of men.&nbsp; I simply used pirate captain as an example.&nbsp; Choose any small group concept you like, the point still remains - fighters make very poor commanders and that's a problem IMO.&nbsp; The Town Guard Captain should be a fighter shouldn't he?&nbsp; Making a mercenary captain a fighter shouldn't be considered a weaksauce option.&nbsp; That all being said though, I'm kinda wondering if warlording the ranger might not be a better fit.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />&nbsp; I'm fickle that way.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue&nbsp; &nbsp; :p"&nbsp; data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 6670254, member: 22779"] Got a few minutes more. So, I'll add this: Warlords are meant to have high Cha, so, right off the bat, "Leader of men" makes sense, whereas taking a high Cha actively hurts a 5e fighter. Warlords start off with Diplomacy and History as class skills making them fit the "Captain" archetype much better. Captains should be educated individuals with broad knowledge. And diplomacy is a must. In 5e, none of the fighter skills speak to this. Warlords, as Combat leader give allies +2 to initiative, or as a Canny Leader grant +2 to insight and Perception. What bonuses does a 5e fighter confer to allies? Now, I will totally admit that warlord powers probably aren't all that useful. I think I am mistaken in remembering powers which gave bonuses to skill checks. My bad. To fair though, I'm not sure why you are arguing with me KM. The whole point of warlording the fighter is to create a fighter archetype that fits the mold of commander of men. I simply used pirate captain as an example. Choose any small group concept you like, the point still remains - fighters make very poor commanders and that's a problem IMO. The Town Guard Captain should be a fighter shouldn't he? Making a mercenary captain a fighter shouldn't be considered a weaksauce option. That all being said though, I'm kinda wondering if warlording the ranger might not be a better fit. :D I'm fickle that way. :p [/QUOTE]

Verification