Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ChrisCarlson" data-source="post: 6810877" data-attributes="member: 6801216">Let me know when you figure it out.I disagree, based on the way in which you keep couching your argument: that warlords aren't warlords "cuz hybrid". I reiterate, I see warlords all over 5e. I listed a handful of obvious ones. And that didn't even include the most important way to represent one: roleplay yourself as a "leader of men". Take up that role. Play it. Maybe I (and the people I play with) are different, but that tends to work great. Try it. You may be pleasantly surprised. Heck, stack that mindset with one or more of the various crunchy options we all know already exist and <whammo!> you got yourself a warlord.An orange is not an apple. See, I can make obvious statements that mean nothing as well.Also, your supposition, that a battlemaster is not a warlord, is false. As the devs have specifically commented on the fact that they put the warlord in the battlemaster. So unless you are claiming you know more about 5e than the people who designed it, you need to stop saying things like that.We all get it. You want something different. More. Whatever. It all gets so nebulous when anyone starts asking for particulars to be nailed down. But there are other systems and/or editions for that. I don't get the need to make 5e into something it is not. To move backwards. That does no one any good. Especially not WotC.</blockquote>