Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lord Twig" data-source="post: 6825552" data-attributes="member: 31754">Damage is something all classes can do. Some are focused on it others have other options. It's not my opinion that a full-support class is too extreme. It is WotC that didn't include them in the game, not me.WotC could add full support classes to the game, that's up to them. My point in bringing it up is that maybe part of the reason you don't see a full-on lazy lord class is not just because of the non-magical or inspiration thing. It might be that they didn't include it because they didn't include any full-on support classes. So the Warlord wasn't singled out for exclusion because it was a Warlord, it was excluded because it is a full support class in a game where they didn't want to have full support classes.So instead we get subclasses that can do some Warlord things, but can also do their primary thing (damage or skill or whatever). Again, not because they are excluding Warlord just because they don't like Warlord, but because they want support to be a secondary function, whether it is magical or not.I'm just guessing here though. Maybe that is not the reason WotC left out the Warlord. Maybe they just don't like Warlords. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>