Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="SteveC" data-source="post: 9337601" data-attributes="member: 9053">My understanding (and this is 10-year-old information so it has drifted through the vicissitudes of time) but during the D&amp;D Next playtest, there was a designer who didn't like the Warlord class. So it didn't get in. Since then there has been a tremendous emphasis on not adding any new classes, but rather doing things through sub-classes. I think the assessment is that the Battle Master is &quot;good enough.&quot;The fact that this discussion is still a thing (and I remember the Warlord sub-forum) indicates to me that taking a serious stab at the class would be a good idea. As soon as I'm able to, I'm going to be playing a Commander as my primary Pathfinder Society character, so you might say I'm excited about it.I have zero expectation that we will see the class as anything but a UA experiment, but even that would be an awesome start.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="SteveC, post: 9337601, member: 9053"] My understanding (and this is 10-year-old information so it has drifted through the vicissitudes of time) but during the D&D Next playtest, there was a designer who didn't like the Warlord class. So it didn't get in. Since then there has been a tremendous emphasis on not adding [B]any [/B]new classes, but rather doing things through sub-classes. I think the assessment is that the Battle Master is "good enough." The fact that this discussion is still a thing (and I remember the Warlord sub-forum) indicates to me that taking a serious stab at the class would be a good idea. As soon as I'm able to, I'm going to be playing a Commander as my primary Pathfinder Society character, so you might say I'm excited about it. I have zero expectation that we will see the class as anything but a UA experiment, but even that would be an awesome start. [/QUOTE]

Verification