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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6675430" data-attributes="member: 996">In 4e there were two game-design reasons not to go that way (much).  For one thing, the Warlord was a Leader, not a controller, and the kinds of offensive, morale-based exploits that idea would tend to imply would be much more suited to the Controller role (in fact, there was a homebrew martial controller, the Dreadnought, that did just that sort of thing, but..)  For another, 4e design stuck firmly to the idea of martial classes using weapons, not implements, so there'd have been no clean way to work something like that into the infamous 'treadmill.'5e, BTW, faces neither of those issues. An apt analogy, if said vet were south-Vietnamese, still in Vietnam, and VC were still shooting at him.   This is one of those rice paddies where the edition war played out, afterall.  Again, the Warlord only existed in 4e, you can't discuss it while pretending 4e never existed.  And, if there were helicopters waiting at the embassy to take us to some Pathfinder-style 4e-Clone, I must have missed 'em. Martial Healing, surge-like HD and and overnight healing, along with fighters who really do cast spells, and quite a lot else criticized are in 5e in various forms, and drawing far less criticism, even in proportion.  But, it's not an important distinction:  the arguments against those things are as invalid now as they were then - and even less relevant, with 5e's DM-empowering style making ignoring or changing them easy.  Any hypothetical Warlord would have to be an opt-in class, part of some module, perhaps.  There's no reason for those who hate it to fear it.  You won't have to defect to Pathfinder, just keep playing the Standard Game.</blockquote>

Verification