Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9345063" data-attributes="member: 6790260">It's not that it's strictly superior overall, though it is slightly better. It's that:1. The original Warlord did not get heavy armor (and did get martial weapons, notably), and this is one of the easiest and simplest things we can do to stick close(r) to the original;2. Going heavy armor, especially with other things like the default d10 HD and default Extra Attack, contributes to a "do it yourself" build style*;3. Armor proficiency and bonus HP are well-established as subclass add-ons, but (AFAIK) WotC subclass design is purely additive: they have never published a single subclass which outright removes/deletes extant proficiencies in a class.*Again, I'm not opposed to this as a specific build option, I just don't want it to be the unavoidable, unremovable baked-in default. Which is, again, the big problem with the Fighter, there's too much baked-in default.I do agree that there's some Str-vs-Dex stuff going on here. That's why I advocate a "Vanguard" (or whatever we want to call it, that's just my term) subclass that specializes in Strength, heavy armor, and personally having extra attacks. Part of why I favor the Warlock/"fractal" class model is that it's already an established example of how to have highly divergent subclasses and customization within a single framework. To my eyes, that is the "reuse subsystems you already have" approach that really gets the job done. Invocations as "Tactics" (or what-have-you) are extremely similar, and as noted I think the split-subclass model is terrifically useful for modeling the breadth of options Warlords can cash out as (strong or nimble, charismatic or cerebral, personally-active or assisting from afar, different weapon preferences or martial arts, etc.)Great example: I think it should be well-supported to have a Mr. Miagi-style "Old Master" Warlord (or Grand Master Oogway, or Ben Kenobi, or...). That's someone who should be relatively fragile, using light or no armor, often supporting from afar or tricking others (allies as well as enemies) into doing what they can see needs to be done. If the baseline Warlord chassis is wedded to d10 and heavy armor, I'm not seeing that choice making sense for this character--too robust and too well-armored to make sense. Meanwhile, if we make the "Vanguard" separate from this "Old Master", we have so much more room to play, to build upon the 4e ethos of the Warlord but in new ways, 5e ways, that respect the old ways without being enslaved to them.That's why I say that there should be at least one subclass, possibly multiple, that we give heavy armor as one of the subclass perks. Again, Clerics do that: Forge, Life, Order, Tempest, and War all get heavy armor as a subclass feature. With Bard, Valor and Swords both get medium armor. Bladesinger gets Light armor. Bumping up armor proficiency from multiple subclasses is a well-precedented 5e design choice, especially for support-heavy classes.</blockquote>

Verification