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="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9342561" data-attributes="member: 6790260">We have Crawford himself telling us that this is not true. That's why Warlocks needed to be revised in "it's totally not a revised edition, you guys! It's TOTALLY the SAME GAME, ignore any signs that we're changing anything" 5e, aka "2024 5e."Classes based on short rests are not getting enough short rests compared to how many long rests groups take. That is a fact, told to us by the very makers themselves. If you wish to dispute it with them, more power to you.Nope! That is also emphatically untrue.Uh...no. Rogues are the bottom of the barrel. Try again.Again, you conflate what I am speaking about with "optimization." I am not. Do not mistake caring about being effective with desiring to be the absolute most optimal possible thing.If a player is choosing to play, for example, a "Warlord-like" character (since you can't actually make a proper Warlord in 5e), they want that to be the thing they do best. That is not the thing Fighters to best. It does not matter what subclass you pick. Supporting other people is not, and in 5e-as-it-exists cannot be, the thing a Fighter is best at. Period. That is the problem. The fundamental design of the Fighter makes...well, as the name says, fighting the thing they are best at.I don't need a Warlord that is better than ALL POSSIBLE other character-build combinations at supporting people. That's a Wizard fanboy thing, and absolute nonsense. What I need is a class that, within the options provided to that class, supporting other people is the thing they're best at. Fighters will never meet that standard. Either you have to nerf their actual Fighter abilities into the ground, or you need to give them support abilities that are stronger than the existing pure-personal-action options they currently have, in order for "support other people" to be the thing the so-called "Warlord Fighter" is personally best at doing. Both of those paths are unacceptable. WotC has made clear (by demonstration) that the former is not something they will ever do in 5e, and the latter is--as so many folks decry--blatantly overpowered.How is it not what you said? You're talking about building a character that supports, but does so by intentionally dumping all the things they're personally good at instead. That's literally the same thing. You're dumping what you're actually good for doing, and replacing it with something clearly, demonstrably inferior.I want a Warlord that doesn't have to dump anything. A Warlord where the thing it is already best at doing is supporting others. Where trying to do all the work yourself IS the "do something clearly, demonstrably inferior" option.</blockquote>

Verification