Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7041645" data-attributes="member: 996">As in 'Hero' could be a name for a class. <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=";)" />  OK, a very broad class, like Fighter, Rogue, & Warlord - and Paladin - all wrapped together. D&D does have a problem modeling heroes of myth & legend - and genre.  No small part of that problem is the very limited set of abilities it's traditionally given the fighter and rogue, the only candidates to model most of those heroes, because casting spells and other feats of magic isn't exactly prevalent among them.  A lot of heroes were great leaders in some sense, or cunning in some other sense, and the traditional fighter class consistently failed them.  5e /could/ have dashed off the Champion as the traditional fighter, left most of it's DPR baggage in that sub-class and gone off and done some things more interesting than the BM & EK with the rest of the class.  It didn't, and the way it didn't leaves a need for an entirely new class.  The Warlord is the remaining PH1 full class that hasn't been done by 5e, yet, and 5e isn't constrained by Role the way 4e was, so it could be stretched to cover quite a bit more than just support. I think you did express a concern or two perhaps a single iota of validity, and I did address or acknowledge them as such.  Balance isn't an invalid concern, for instance, just not a very relevant one in the context of 5e, where class balance is an after-market accessory installed & maintained by the DM.But the kefluffle over the name when each objection to it is as or more cogent to other class names already in use?  No iotas there.  Sorry. Even before it was a 4e Primal Defender, I'd used the name 'Warden' for a Ranger variant in 3.0, so the name has extra baggage for me, even beyond what the turning-into-a-tree-or-whatever version established.   That's certainly a strike against it, since you can't comprehend the appeal of the Warlord in the first place. Yes.  Both INT & CHA should be there.  Really, there's a case for WIS as an alternative to either, as well. Strike 2.  Like taking the STR option away from figthers - yeah, DEX fighters are cool and all, but the original kind need to stay in the game.  Plus, avoiding or playing the 'Leadership' possibility of high CHA is something that can be left to players to figure out.  Anyone with high CHA, let alone a background like Noble that implies authority, might be RP'd as a party-leader, or not.  Mechanics that support using CHA to aid allies could be visualized as leadership, or cheer-leading, or even emotional attachment inviting rescue.  It depends on what works for the players in question.Help is a universal thing, and Advantage looses steam quickly in 5e because so many things grant it and it doesn't stack.  Still, like the Mastermind's enhanced help, it's a neat little idea. Very similar to protection style. Interesting, possibly alarming as it actually does mess with the action economy.  <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=";)" />  meh. Not terrible, a little odd for INT, but not a suitable replacement for restoring hps. Which Inspiration?   <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>

Verification