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: 6778029" data-attributes="member: 996">There's no lack of clarity about what the Warlord has been or could be expanded to model.  It's a common archetype not just in the broader fantasy genre, but in heroic/action/pulp genres in general and was a fully-realized class in a past edition.  I mean, I remember playing Guild Wars and having many short-term shouts available on my Warrior (the one I really only played while solo Gruul farming to be fair haha) and I can definitely see how a Martial-based "shout" system would be a useful fit. But at the same token I wonder how it would differ from a Fighter enough to be distinctive, without creating some insanely difficult mechanic to try and justify it.Depends on what you mean by 'functioning differently.'  A Cleric and Wizard don't 'function differently' than eachother in that both go around prepping & casting spells.  A Warlord could function something like a Battlemaster/PDK or Mastermind, in the same sense that a Wizard functions something like an Eldritch Knight or Arcane Trickster.  The difference between a Warlord and the very DPR-focused 5e take on the Fighter is much greater than the difference between the Druid and Nature Cleric, or the Sorcerer and Wizard.  And, the existing choices for a non-casting/magic-using PC are extremely limited in the PH (just 5 vs 30+), leaving lots of room and a clear need for more.  So, really, it is as or more 'justified,' in that sense, than half the classes already in the PH.  The Sorcerer, Warlock, Druid, Ranger, Paladin, Monk and Bard all have less mechanical justification, and the Druid, Ranger, Monk, Bard, Cleric, and Vancian casters in general, less representation in genre.If you were, hypothetically, to consolidate classes down to a level where the Warlord would be reasonably folded into the fighter, your class list might look something like:Warrior (encompassing Fighter, Warlord, Barbarian, Knights, Swashbucklers &c), Rogue (encompassing, Bard, Thief, Assassin, 'Gish' concepts & other specialist/opportunist/dilettante PCs), and Mage (mechanically a Warlock with Divine, Hermetic, Primal, & other 'pacts' representing the breadth of caster concepts).The case for the Sorcerer in 4e & 5e, in the absence of 3.x/PF Spontaneous Casting was, indeed, much weaker than the case for the Warlord.  But, 4e's design approach and everything-is-core book-pushing sales strategy both tended to make it err on the side of having more classes rather than fewer, while 5e's "D&D for everyone who ever loved D&D"/"bring fans of all editions together" kumbaya agenda argues for including classes emblematic of past editions, even if they might be handled in other ways.</blockquote>

Verification