NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mecheon" data-source="post: 9337219" data-attributes="member: 6801776">They're irrelevant to the character concept regardless of how they're flavoured. That won't help. You're not doing the thing you could do, and homebrew shows that you should be able to do.Well, given we're talking 5E combats, Warlock is generally considered the gold standard of where people think balance should be so we should be aiming there. Regardless though, Fighter has Battlemaster, they're pretty solid. What people want is less fighter stuff and the stuff expanded off into its own class. People who want to play the Warlord don't want to play the Fighter, its that simple.Why should we weigh down this concept under Fighter when at least two people have independantly shown it works seperately? Have you given either Kibble's or Laser's a shot in-game to see how they perform? If it was simple enough to compact into Fighter completely, I hardly think Warlord would have hit "Most requested new class in the game" after Blood Hunter, and Blood Hunter had the force of, y'know, being on D&D Beyond and basically being all but canon as far as most people were concerned due to that tactic approval. We're not talking some obscure side-class, we're talking about one of the most consistently highest rated homebrew classes in the game's history that people have wanted to be canon, to the point when the Artificer came out, people compared it to Kibbles' artificer, found the official one wanting, and just. Kept using the older one.4E's Warlord wasn't a proof of concept, it was a fully fleshed out class that functioned. Its proof of concept was the Marshall or the like back in 3EThere's plenty of reason to split them and playstyle and class budget is the reason. There's an interplay of features each class needs, and homebrewers have, frankly, turned into a science at this point to establish how to build good ones. The thing is, this is something that needs to be careful. Take the Illrigger class, for example, which is one that absolutely does not give a damn about that budget and just, gives the class everything. What's people's opinions on it? Overpowered (Note: I have not played the new version of it). Its a delicate balance and you have to be careful. WotC isn't careful. That's why Ranger had to be redesigned multiple times and folks practically rioted when they just went "Yeah let's just give wizards the sorcerer class benefits", along with a whole set of sub-classes that you couldn't get the full benefit from unless you were a wizard. That's design without concern for the class budget.We already know what happens if we just make it a sub-class: We get the Battlemaster. We already have the Battlemaster. We've had the Battlemaster for a good decade now, and folks have long agreed that it isn't scratching that Warlord ich. A Warlord dragging the chassis of the Fighter around will be limited in what it can do due to everything the Fighter can already do. It'll be weighed due by useless features and made ineffective at its job. If you're insistent on making the Warlord a Fighter subclass? You'll just invent the Battlemaster again, or just....  Batltemaster, but better. You'll still have all the problems already established. And what we've seen in the last decade is folks do not think the Battlemaster is not doing enough on the Warlord side</blockquote>

Verification