|
7 months ago ::
Nov 11, 2012 - 9:46PM
#31
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
Warlord is fine. If the player doesn't think it's appropriate for his character, his character doesn't have to refer to himself by that title; he can call himself whatever he likes.
+1
+1000
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 11, 2012 - 9:49PM
#32
|
Date Joined:
May 19, 2011
|
Or we could kill the Warlord as a class and give its stuff to the Fighter in a maneuver package.
Let's not.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 11, 2012 - 11:01PM
#33
|
Date Joined:
Aug 23, 2007
|
Or we could kill the Warlord as a class and give its stuff to the Fighter in a maneuver package.
Let's not.
Why not? I mean think about it. How would you build a Warlord in 5e? First of all, if it's the same concept it won't be allowed spells. Because of that it'd probably end up with expertise dice if the non-caster trend continues. So what makes a Warlord special? What sets it apart from the 5e Fighter that can't be handled by maneuvers? Combat Leader is pretty much it.
EDIT: Actually, Combat Leader could be handled by a maneuver too, it's just an area of effect version of Danger Sense.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 11, 2012 - 11:05PM
#34
|
|
|
Or we could kill the Warlord as a class and give its stuff to the Fighter in a maneuver package.
That's more or less what I was thinking. Work it in some other way. I don't know if I'd want to trade maneuvers for tactician abilities as there are lots of iconic 'commander' types who are basically just great soldiers.
Maybe just take multiple paths to the same place. Have a Background as an 'officer'. Have a Specialty called 'tactician' or 'tactical specialty'. Have a 'commander' maneuver tree and have a true 'War Lord' as a prestige class/legacy option.
Then, depending on the character concept, you can sort of dial up or back on how much tactical leadership you want for your base character as the game progresses, with plenty of options at each level.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 11, 2012 - 11:19PM
#35
|
Date Joined:
Mar 30, 2007
|
Or we could kill the Warlord as a class and give its stuff to the Fighter in a maneuver package.
That's more or less what I was thinking. Work it in some other way. I don't know if I'd want to trade maneuvers for tactician abilities as there are lots of iconic 'commander' types who are basically just great soldiers.
Maybe just take multiple paths to the same place. Have a Background as an 'officer'. Have a Specialty called 'tactician' or 'tactical specialty'. Have a 'commander' maneuver tree and have a true 'War Lord' as a prestige class/legacy option.
Then, depending on the character concept, you can sort of dial up or back on how much tactical leadership you want for your base character as the game progresses, with plenty of options at each level.
I grok what you're saying. There could be Rogue Warlords and Wizard Warlords. Barbarian Warlords and Monk Warlords. Warlock Warlords! Indeed, the 'Warlord' role isn't class specific. It's versatile enough to juxtapose with any character class.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 11, 2012 - 11:45PM
#36
|
Date Joined:
Feb 17, 2010
|
Or we could kill the Warlord as a class and give its stuff to the Fighter in a maneuver package.
That's more or less what I was thinking. Work it in some other way. I don't know if I'd want to trade maneuvers for tactician abilities as there are lots of iconic 'commander' types who are basically just great soldiers.
Maybe just take multiple paths to the same place. Have a Background as an 'officer'. Have a Specialty called 'tactician' or 'tactical specialty'. Have a 'commander' maneuver tree and have a true 'War Lord' as a prestige class/legacy option.
Then, depending on the character concept, you can sort of dial up or back on how much tactical leadership you want for your base character as the game progresses, with plenty of options at each level.
I grok what you're saying. There could be Rogue Warlords and Wizard Warlords. Barbarian Warlords and Monk Warlords. Warlock Warlords! Indeed, the 'Warlord' role isn't class specific. It's versatile enough to juxtapose with any character class.
The big problem of making a class through a base class + specialty is that you then limit people. They have to take that specialty to play the core concept they want to play. No wiggle room.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 11, 2012 - 11:52PM
#37
|
Date Joined:
Mar 26, 2007
|
O Captain, my Captain.
Actually, I voted for it going back to its original title: Marshall.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 12, 2012 - 12:14AM
#38
|
|
|
If first level "wizards" exist, first level "warlords" exist. Mearls' objection is nonsensical. Stick with Warlord, or simpler still, "Lord".
Knight, incidentally, has the same fluff issues and more, and should not be used in any case.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 12, 2012 - 12:22AM
#39
|
Date Joined:
Jan 28, 2010
|
Chavalier
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 12, 2012 - 12:23AM
#40
|
Date Joined:
Feb 17, 2010
|
Damn wish I had voted for captain. It gets the point across and is general enough to be applied broadly. Oh well already voted for Marshal for much the same reasons.
|
|
|
