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: 6828092" data-attributes="member: 996">It's a range of playstyles and character concepts that was well-supported in one past edition, and which other prior editions had attempted to support, if with less success.  That's not 'niche,' it's a legitimate part of 5e's goals of supporting more playstyles, and being for fans of all editions - of re-uniting the fanbase.They should, indeed. There's hardly a clear need for more neo-Vancian caster classes, for instance.  How the class addresses the edition's goals, and what message it sends the fanbase are also important considerations, as 5e /is/ the edition conceived in response to the fanbase becoming so fragmented, even the appearance of excluding a faction is undesirable.  (Undesirable for 5e and fans who are Ok with the fanbase re-uniting, obviously, not everyone is singing kumbaya...)There's always room to expand the game, sure, even into vast new territories never explored.  The Warlord, though, has already been a balanced, playable part of the game.  There's little mechanical/balance/'bloat' risk to reprising it for 5e, if done well - if not done so well, the greatest risk is that it will be non-viable 'chaff' or a trap option./You/ don't literally have to do the math, it's just a figure of speech, others have already done it for you, there have been a number of threads analyzing the DPR potential of the classes, for instance.  It's not like the high DPR potential of multi-attacking is controversial, either.    The point remains that there's only 5 non-caster(non-supernatural to be more precise) sub-classes in the 5e PH, and that they cover very little ground.  You have 3 tanky DPR and 2 DPR with a side of skill monkey.  You seem to be trying to make a case for there being an low-DPR Tanky build, too, but it's not like that'd exactly blow things wide open, even if it were demonstrably viable.  We've also left out that the Archery style is there with good Ranged DPR, especially with feats available.  Whether we sum up what viable PC choices can contribute to their party without recourse to magical powers as "just DPR," or break it out into tanky DPR, opportunistic DPR w/skills, and ranged DPR, we're not really saying anything different.  I didn't care much for playing Strikers in 4e, and the few 'martial' choices in 5e so far haven't done a good job of exiting that particular box, even if it is officially an informal box, now.  So, I want a greater variety of viable/meaningful choices for martial concepts.  I'd like that to come in a way that brings back archetypes, character concepts, play styles, and campaign styles supported in previous editions (admittedly, mostly the more recent editions - 3.x & 4e, Essentials is covered, and the classic game has evoked very effectively, indeed), and doing just that is very much in alignment(npi) with 5e's stated goals going back to the announcement of Next.  The Warlord is the obvious candidate for accomplishing some of that.</blockquote>

Verification