NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6824911" data-attributes="member: 996">No, it really is mostly because spellcasting is so flexible.  You can cast Cure Wounds a lot, or can belt out offensive spells. That's one way of putting it.  The Fighter's main contribution, DPR, is baked into the class, the sub-classes build on it a little, but can't trade it in for something else, so a fighter sub-class just isn't a suitable vehicle for re-introducing the Warlord.  The BM & PDK prove that rather conclusively, even as they set precedents for the sorts of things the Warlord might do.The Battlemaster's maneuvers layer a little extra on top of attacks (as well as a little extra DPR), so they're pretty trivial, in addition to being very limited due to CS dice., or granting allies attacks. That would be a very silly thing to do.Those are the two other heavily DPR-focused classes that lack much diversity and flexibility.  Even so, I can't agree, the fighter really is at the bottom of the heap in that regard.It's nothing new or unfamiliar:  Mitigating damage with defensive buffs, restoring hps, removing conditions, & buffing offense would be the high points.  It can shade into control (debuffing the enemy, for instance), as well.Meaningful/adequate support functions are among the many options lacking from the small set of existing non-casting/magical sub-classes in 5e.  That the Warlord would address that omission does not imply that it would be limited to /just/ doing such things.  Afterall, as you point out, no existing support-capable class is limited to just support.  Nod. There's no need to bake rank or authority into a class, since both are readily available via existing Standard-Game Backgrounds.There's also no great need to avoid it.  The Paladin implies knighthood, for instance, and the Cleric & Druid (at least) imply positions of religious leadership, which, depending on the society, can include quite a lot of hierarchical rank and/or authority.Actually, the Warlord had several other builds.  Tactical, Resourceful, Insightful.  In 4e, they all used 'Inspiring' Word because of the way 4e implemented Roles (but could also re-skin it if they really hated the idea of being inspiring, I suppose, thanks the way 4e handled fluff text), but 5e needn't have that issue.  A given hypothetical 5e Warlord PC might be a curmudgeonly tactician who's not in the least inspiring, for instance.  The better done the class, the wider the range of past and potential concepts it could handle.5e is so DM-empowered that absolutely everything is optional.  The most-nearly-non-optional things are what constitute what Mike Mearls called the 'Standard Game' - the rules presented in the PH that way.  So, for instance, feats are optional.  The character classes in the PH, are as close to being mandatory as possible.  New classes, like the Mystic or a hypothetical Warlord would be optional, be definition.  It's a non-issue.</blockquote>

Verification