Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="The Crimson Binome" data-source="post: 7065831" data-attributes="member: 6775031">It is entirely subjective, because it depends entirely on what a given player thinks a warlord is all about. The way I see it, a warlord is primarily someone who hits an enemy with a sword, because that's what it's powers do. Some of their powers also give bonuses to other characters, or give them actions or whatever, but I never saw that as being their main thing. YMMV, obviously.While we're at it, a wizard (in 2E or 3E) was still a wizard, even if when it could only cast one spell per day. The fact that it spent most of its time as a lousy fighter did not mean that the class concept wasn't covered; it just meant that a class concept doesn't require doing unique things most of the time.I'm not going to disagree with that. At the very least, the level of broadness in the Fighter class is inconsistent with the level of specificity in the Barbarian and Ranger classes. Either the latter two should be subclasses of the former, or each subclass of the former should be expanded out into a full class.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="The Crimson Binome, post: 7065831, member: 6775031"] It is entirely [I]subjective[/I], because it depends entirely on what a given player [I]thinks[/I] a warlord is all about. The way I see it, a warlord is [I]primarily[/I] someone who hits an enemy with a sword, because that's what it's powers do. Some of their powers also give bonuses to other characters, or give them actions or whatever, but [I]I[/I] never saw that as being their [I]main[/I] thing. YMMV, obviously. While we're at it, a wizard (in 2E or 3E) was still a wizard, even if when it could only cast one spell per day. The fact that it spent most of its time as a lousy fighter did not mean that the class concept wasn't covered; it just meant that a class concept doesn't [I]require[/I] doing unique things most of the time. I'm not going to disagree with that. At the very least, the level of broadness in the Fighter class is inconsistent with the level of specificity in the Barbarian and Ranger classes. Either the latter two should be subclasses of the former, or each subclass of the former should be expanded out into a full class. [/QUOTE]

Verification