Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 5995422" data-attributes="member: 996">I'll try...An Assassin is ultimately someone who kills with an agenda.&nbsp; For money, or for political purposes or whatever.&nbsp; In theory, you could kill for money with a Death Spell, or for political purposes with a crossbow, or whatever.&nbsp; All PC classes tend to be pretty good at the killing.&nbsp; Doesn't sound so much like a specialty, theme, background, kit or anything of that nature, so much as a motivation or even a mission.&nbsp; And, the fighter is already 'best at combat' (thus killing in the mundane sense), evokers/necromancers/whatever are probably going to be best at killing with spells, and the Rogue can probably claim best at stealthy killing - not that 'stealthy killing,' makes much of an heroic 'best' to hang a class on.A Barbarian is someone from an 'uncivilized' culture.&nbsp; A blood-crazed berserker, a tribal shaman, and nomadic horseman might all be barbarians.&nbsp; Berserker might make a good class or theme or kit or whatever.&nbsp; Barbarian, makes sense as a background.&nbsp; And, again, the barbarian lacks a 'best at,' to justify it's class-ness.&nbsp; The fighter's already best at fighting, the Ranger, presumably, at wilderness stuff.&nbsp;&nbsp; I don't think 'best at frothing at the mouth and attacking without regard for friend or foe' would cut it.A Warlord is warrior who leads others in battle, which can be pretty broad, from a mustachioed barbaric Brennus, to a Napoleonic cavalry officer, to a Sun Tzu.&nbsp; But, it's a martial class by implication, not a caster (a 'General' might be of any class, for instance, in the same sense as the Assassin, above).&nbsp; Mechanically, the fighter has never done that well, and, given the 5e mandate to be 'best at fighting,' letting the fighter bolt-on any sort of meaningful leadership portfolio (from gaining followers, to inspiring resolve or ferocity, to modeling tactical brilliance) might be over the top.&nbsp; I guess the Warlord has an arguable 'best' to be best at - 'best at leadership.'</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 5995422, member: 996"] I'll try... An Assassin is ultimately someone who kills with an agenda. For money, or for political purposes or whatever. In theory, you could kill for money with a Death Spell, or for political purposes with a crossbow, or whatever. All PC classes tend to be pretty good at the killing. Doesn't sound so much like a specialty, theme, background, kit or anything of that nature, so much as a motivation or even a mission. And, the fighter is already 'best at combat' (thus killing in the mundane sense), evokers/necromancers/whatever are probably going to be best at killing with spells, and the Rogue can probably claim best at stealthy killing - not that 'stealthy killing,' makes much of an heroic 'best' to hang a class on. A Barbarian is someone from an 'uncivilized' culture. A blood-crazed berserker, a tribal shaman, and nomadic horseman might all be barbarians. Berserker might make a good class or theme or kit or whatever. Barbarian, makes sense as a background. And, again, the barbarian lacks a 'best at,' to justify it's class-ness. The fighter's already best at fighting, the Ranger, presumably, at wilderness stuff. I don't think 'best at frothing at the mouth and attacking without regard for friend or foe' would cut it. A Warlord is warrior who leads others in battle, which can be pretty broad, from a mustachioed barbaric Brennus, to a Napoleonic cavalry officer, to a Sun Tzu. But, it's a martial class by implication, not a caster (a 'General' might be of any class, for instance, in the same sense as the Assassin, above). Mechanically, the fighter has never done that well, and, given the 5e mandate to be 'best at fighting,' letting the fighter bolt-on any sort of meaningful leadership portfolio (from gaining followers, to inspiring resolve or ferocity, to modeling tactical brilliance) might be over the top. I guess the Warlord has an arguable 'best' to be best at - 'best at leadership.' [/QUOTE]

Verification