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: 7042935" data-attributes="member: 996">You didn't actually mention any, you just said 'other legacy classes.'   Other classes besides the Warlord, from past-editions Players' Handbooks would include the Knight, Psion, Shaman, Avenger, Warden, Beguiler, Invoker, Ardent, Battlemind, and Duskblade, IIRC.The Knight was a slightly sticky non-casting tank, a protection fighter fakes it reasonably well, add a Noble background for the non-combat.  Psion could be the afore-mentioned GOO warlock.  The Shaman was a nature-oriented Leader in 4e, the Druid covers that in 5e, not wonderfully well in terms of fluff, but better in functionality than a BM or PDK covers the Warlord.  The Avenger... Acolyte Assassin gets the unarmored and divine aspects, but would be pretty short shrift, a Rogue sub-class might cover it, though.  Warden is conceptually covered by the Oath of Ancients Paladin, but was a Shapechanger, which'd be Druid, maybe MC the two, but the Paladin at least is in the right ballpark, functionally.  Beguiler, not familiar, don't see how an enchanter or other arcansist with the right spell choice would be far off.  Invoker, the blasty alternative to the 4e Cleric, the 5e Cleric can be plenty blasty.  Ardent?  If you hate psionics = magic, about as bad off as the Warlord, otherwise re-skin the support caster of your choice.  Battlemind... OK, nothing much resembling that, I'll grant.  Duskblade, bladelock, I assume, or one of the other gishy sub-classes, Bladesinger or EK. You are talking Core class vs complete adventurer oddity, there.  OK, you're only speaking for yourself, but it's an odd context if you're merely indifferent, why aren't you boosting the class you'd like to see - like the Spellthief in the UA thread about Rogue subclasses - or did you, I can't confess much interest in that thread, so don't recall it too well? Heh.  Converting 4e classes verbatim would be problematic, as would be shooting for the same kind of balance as 4e achieved, sure.  5e simply doesn't approach class design that way, though.  Look at how very different the 3.5 and 5e Sorcerer are, mechanically, for instance - or rather, how different all the other casters /aren't/ from the 3e Sorcerer, since they all cast spontaneously!  That mechanical identity was gone, but they kept the whole power-in-the-blood thing, and at least made it a full class, even if they didn't have much to offer it in terms of uniqueness.  It's design from the concept out, not build within a functional box.  The Warlord concept was constrained in 4e by Role, in 5e, a lot /more/ could be done with it. Well, than 5e non-caster characters.  The reverse is true for casters, an Epic 4e Wizard would be dumbstruck by the power of a 5e wizard, even one half his level.  More spells known, more spells ready, more spells per day, all of them more powerful, just /MOAR/.  ;P  The casters 5e tackled had traditional incarnations before 4e, and that's what 5e harkened too.  Again, the Warlord concept isn't held back by any such baggage. See, that's just sad. The BM was a sad, failed attempt at a 'complex' 4e fighter.  It's less a Warlord than an EK is a Wizard - a lot less.  The PDK is a Cormyrean PrC.   OK.  4e Wizard.  Level 1.  Knows two dailies, can prep one.  Has 1 encounter.  2 attack cantrips.  5e Wizard, level 1, Knows 6 daily spells, can prepare 1+ INT mod of them, can cast 2 of them per day, including casting the same one twice (which the 4e wizard can't do until high level), and can recover one of them after a short rest.  The gap only widens from there.  Don't even get me started on the Druid.  I was a big fan of the 1e Druid, the 4e Druid was a disappointment, the 5e an embarrassment of riches by comparison. Heck, I still wish 5e could handle the 3.5 fighters I liked.  <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=";)" />  (I'll grant I couldn't care less about 4e Rogue or Barbarian, just not that into 'strikers,' myself.)  But, the 4e Barbarian with his spirit connection just got a little more half-hearted support from UA.  So it's not all bad on that front. IDK.  Some of the classes in the PH were well done.  They weren't all Sorcerers and Rangers.  I can't pretend to have a lot of faith in WotC at this late date, but I'm willing to give them another chance. (Not a 'second' chance, mind, it's not like I'm even counting at this point.) The Warlord was the newest thing in D&D since...... I really don't know.  D&D was so stodgy prior to 3e.   Modular multi-classing or Feats, I guess?  ...wow, that's kinda a depressing thought, really....</blockquote>

Verification