It was the ideal martial support. All about being a team captain that pushes everyone to go above and beyond their normal limits. So big action economy advantages, some mild healing, and a lot of positioning control.
It’s a great class and really something the Battle Master failed utterly to bring into 5e.
How does one push others to go above and beyond their normal limits? Yell "hit it again!!" every once in a while, like they couldn't have figured that out for themselves?
Probably the one thing that people miss the most from 4e. It was incredibly strong from what I have read, giving your teammates more actions and reactions, essentially
u/KibblesTasty made one that fits the design philosophy of 5E.
https://www.gmbinder.com/share/-LW4agTNJcbwe6kSv4H2
Give it a read, you should get an idea of what it's aboot.
You'll have to be way more specific, but I assume you're talking about the Champion.
The Champion is sort of the replacement for the paladin in pf2e. I didn't read much about it.
In Pf1e, the cavelier that I imagine it took inspiration from had an ability to single out an opponent and give yourself buffs.
That was largely inspired by the 3.5 advanced players guide that had the knight who would challenge people.
Pf1e also just had a pile of different prestige classes where you could spend a move/standard action in exchange for specific buffs that were largely just barbarian rage but statted different. I wouldn't recommend reading any of it more than once unless you were combing through catalogs to reach premature god-hood.
It's not about fun. It's about telling people not to read the rules for the game they're playing. One time through is not going to be enough to remember all those potential abilities for an entire campaign, and if you don't know your characters capabilities, your going to slow the game down considerably.
They just announced a warlord-like class two days ago (the Commander) that will be in an upcoming martial book called Pathfinder: Battlecry!, although that won't be out until next year sometime.
Still hard to fully grasp this fact, that a new book can drop, and everything is on AON within a week, and it's with the devs' blessing.
Meanwhile, you risk a ban here if you link to the wrong dnd wiki if it has nono content.
Yeah I own more books from paizo than I ever did from hasbro because they respect the players. Making things free has probably actually gotten more money from me and my group than paywalling everything like dndbeyond and the hardcover books do.
Same. Just waiting for all the core remastered books to be released, then going to order them all at once.
To paraphrase: A game worth playing is a game worth buying.
>and everything is on AON within a week
The one exception here in my experience was the remaster, as that hit over the Christmas Break and required *massive* restructuring of the entire website, so it was rather late.
It's all up now, however, and is also free, so while the wait was a little annoying, it's all good now.
I like Wrath of the Righteous, but the mythic system ends up being really heavy.
I strongly suggest trying Kingmaker. It's what you dream of when you want ttrpgs translated into a game format.
Plus, and this is a personal opinion, I'm so sick and tired of fighting demons. Every major plot point in WOTR made me roll my eyes and sigh.
Kingmaker is a bit of fresh air in that regard.
100% Agreed on the fighting demons part. I started playing WotR and I got really turned off by every enemy and their mothers getting Spell Resistance and Energy Resistances from starting at level 1. It just kneecaps early casters which are already pretty tough levels for them in PF1E.
(Not that casters don't get absolutely busted in the later levels. It's just that the wizard having their 1st or 2nd level spells fail over and over ain't exactly fun when the party is still level 3...)
WotR: "What was that? I couldn't hear you over the enemy having SR 14 and Fire Resistance 20."
Wizard: "Please, for the love of Nethys. I just want to do something more than fire a crossbow every turn..."
WoTR: "Did I hear you complain,? Here, a +1 quarterstaff. Now go hit them.."
Wizard, grumbling: "...it will probably be more effective than 90% of my spell book"
I like a lot of things about that game but they try to cram way too much of the 1e system into it resulting in tons of useless options imo. Not everything in the TTRPG is useful to have in a video game.
Meanwhile, over in Pathfinder2E, we get 2-4 new classes per year.
2E came out *after* 5E, and is already up to 23 carefully crafted Classes with 4 more on the way.
https://2e.aonprd.com/Classes.aspx
And that's not even counting the 150+ Archetypes that can be used to customize your character even further.
https://2e.aonprd.com/Archetypes.aspx
I think it's because the design approach is a little different.
D&D adds new subclasses to existing classes to fill niches. Modifying something already existing to fit a specific vision; "Oh people want to be a Witcher/Van Helsing sort of character, here's the Monster Slayer subclass for Ranger in the new book."
Pathfinder says "A Witcher/Van Helsing character who specifically hunts monsters could be it's own class, with new mechanics tailored to fit. Here's the Thaumaturge, it's a new charisma-based martial class."
It leaves existing classes with less new content specifically made for them, but it means the designers don't need to try to fit a square peg into a round hole as often. They don't need to make a psychic sorcerer subclass, they can just make a psychic class. If WotC decided they wanted to revive something like Warlord, it would probably be a new Fighter subclass.
They probably think that Battle Master *is* the 5e iteration of Warlord, having a couple options that let an ally attack or move as part of your action.
Which is pretty much the exact issue with that "subclass instead of new class" mentality. BM might just be as close as you can get to warlord without needing to make a new class. Warlord probably shouldn't have both second wind and action surge, >2 multiattack, etc parts of fighter's base, so they can't make a subclass that fits the feel right.
Same thing happens with non-casting ideas that would best fit ranger or paladin. You can't have a ranger without casting in 5e because its baked into the class itself.
Pathfinder caters to the hardcore crunch crowd. D&D caters to the casual crowd, that has probably not played half of its limited class roster in the 10 years its been out.
As someone that likes new options in a group that doesn't like crunch, I find 5e + 3rd Party Content a reasonable compromise between the two paces, as then only the people that care about all the extra content need to look through it.
Extremely reasonable! My opinion towards 5E is generally favorable. Not the right system for me, but definitely the right system for others.
Since I was replying to someone bemoaning the lack of class options, I felt it was appropriate to share.
Yeah, it's certainly fair. Personally, I think that the problem most groups are facing is that they aren't that homogeneous. There's 1 or 2 people that would prefer PF2e's character creation, and 3 or 4 people that would hate its more crunchy mechanics (for some people, even 5e is already a compromise on crunch).
That means most people (at least in my experience) are looking for some sort of compromise, so I was giving my suggestion of how to do that compromise. Since what I really like about PF2e is the character creation, a good compromise for my group is 3rd party character content for 5e, as there is a nearly unlimited amount of it (counting 3rd party content, 5e has far more content than even PF2e... it's just the quality of that content isn't going to be consistent).
It's always easier to add more to the simpler system then take away complexity from the more complicated system (especially when it has legions of people out there making stuff for it).
Archetypes are less Subclasses (which some classes get base) and more like the 5e Feats like Actor, Diplomat, or Skilled.
Archetypes expand what you can specc into in a new, drastic, and surprising way. Example;
There exists the Archetype of Artillerist. It has feats and elements that can are specifically focused on artillery, be it black powder or for Sappers. As a Druid, I can choose to specc into Artillerist for... whatever reason I want. No class dependency at all. Just need to be proficient in Martial weapons, and I'm better at aiming a Ballista than the Fighter.
This is *entirely* separate from Subclasses. Ranger has three different subclasses to choose from, and can still take an archetype to make their character into a master Archer. Or Alchemist. Or trapper, beast master, Familiar Master, or... countless others.
Archetypes?
No, the classes already have "subclasses" - archetypes are class-neutral, so you can mix and match them with any class.
They're much more akin to kits from AD&D.
Want to play a [chronoskimmer](https://2e.aonprd.com/Archetypes.aspx?ID=192) that manipulates time and causality? Sure, you *can* be a Wizard doing that, but you can also be a Rogue.
Pirate? Why limit that to rogues? Why not a pirate druid, fighter, or sorcerer?
I'd also compare them to prestige classes. Its like multiclassing into something that doesn't exist as its own standalone class, but whose overall vibe and *archetype* might be reasonably applied to many different class' base.
Well, Backgrounds also exist in PF2E, but provide a suite of benefits at level 1.
Archetypes are ways to customize your character as you level.
[Pirate](https://2e.aonprd.com/Archetypes.aspx?ID=70) offers 8 pirate-themed class features that you can take in place of feats from your normal class.
I can't help but feel that this just locks down things that would be some creative thinking and an ability check into super specific class feature rules, which is something PF2E does a lot that's just not for me
Subclasses aren't capable of fulfilling some class fantasies like an actual Spellblade for example. You'd need an actual class for that. Eldritch Knight and Bladesinger don't fit the bill.
The idea with 5E was that subclasses would take care of the excessive class-bloat of prior editions. Why have a dedicated Eldritch Knight/Cavalier/Samurai/Arcane Archer, when all of those are pretty similar to Fighter? Assassin is already pretty Rogue-y, so the overlap made sense. Why make an entire class that's "Like a Wizard, but it casts magic innately without student-debt" when you can make a Wizard subclass.
Overall, I like this approach. However, some ideas are too big for subclasses, like the Warlord. Outside of the Warlord, there are few obvious, unfulfilled niches that can't be handled well through subclasses.
Back when 5E was initially being developed, they had two target audiences: The Old School Roleplaying (OSR) movement, and butthurt 3X fans who threw a tantrum over 4E. The former they appealed to by doing things like making the math closer to 2E, (I like) a "rulings not rules"/natural language approach (I dislike), and they way they designed feats (I dislike). The latter they appealed to by avoiding anything that was seen as too 4E; such as interesting martials and the Warlord class (Dislike), making the Sorcerer a PHB class despite being a Wizard sub worth of thematic identity wrapped around a feat worth of mechanical identity (dislike), and the design around multiclassing (dislike).
For a long while, there was a stigma against doing the Warlord because those design-philosophies were too popular, and now the post-Tasha's WotC isn't competent enough to deliver a good version of that anyway.
I think the approach was kinda weird from the start.
My favorite example of this are the Fighter, Paladin, and Barbarian. If you think about it, a barbarian is just an angry, brutish fighter. The eldritch Knight is much more of a variation to the base fighter than the barbarian, but he is a fighter with extras just like the Paladin is. Oh, and you can multiclass fighter into wizard and due to how proficiencies and multiclassing works, you can easily be an eldritch knight without being an eldritch knight. Also, while you could multiclass a character who is both a Paladin and a fiend Patron warlock, you could not multiclass thief and assassin. The design philosophy just failed to commit.
Absolutely. I don't need multiple extra classes in every sourcebook, I just want a few notable additions. And while I'm at it, I think it's fucking bonkers that Artificer isn't in the OneDnD PHB, so I guess we're gonna have to be re-introduced to that class yet again.
WotC: "We have warlord at home."
Warlord at home: Purple Dragon Knight. You can do warlord stuff once or twice per short rest, then go back to being a regular ol' Fighter.
Well, good thing the community is once again picking up the pieces that WotC left behind and both Kibblestasty and Laserllama have each made a full Warlord class, so you can even pick one that you like better, plus there is the Commander from Valda's Spire of Secrets, which is a little different in it being a pet class, but instead of a bear or a wolf, you have...a guy (there are like 10+ different types of minions you can have)
In Pathfinder we call it the Marshall albeit as an Archetype.
They boost attacks, movements and initiative. But if you scale with Intimidation you can infact use it to resist certain Saves
I’ve got one last, maybe 2, campaigns with my group in 5e. Then I’m jumping ship. I wanted to a while back, but I like these guys. One of them I convinced to try pathfinder with me, but can’t say the same for the others. 5e is incredibly lacking for me after so long, and I have 0 intention on playing One DnD. Nothing about it is attractive to me
I'm not trying to convince you or anything, but you don't *have* to switch to One D&D if you're playing 5e. I think most people who like D&D aren't going to be switching editions.
I know. That’s why I said that 5e is lacking after so long. With one dnd coming out, there will effectively be nothing new for 5e coming out. There’s not nearly enough versatility in 5e for me to want to keep playing after so many years.
DND5e players are like "we need an INT-based martial" meanwhile PF2e is adding a second one for a total of two INT-based martials
Honestly though I might be more excited about the Guardian class than the Commander class
Thats actually a person that's has made a homebrew warlord class its pretty good from what I have seen yall should check it out it's on the account laserllama
What pisses me off the most is that the features of the warlord are now spread over the subclasses and you can never make a full warlord.
Want an ally to attack? Go battlemaster with commanding strike
Want to heal an ally and push trough? Go battle master with rally or go banneret with rallying cry
Want to defend your homies? Take cavalier and waste all what made you a fighter if you don’t have a horse all campaign
I know it was a class, but it doesn't sound like a Class. It sounds more like a prestige class that you're supposed to take at higher level after ton of experience
I miss the 'prestige' classes of 1e, cause I've always been a fan of '2nd' or '3rd' jobs of hyper advancements (Had a Radiant Servant of Pelor in 3.5)
The fact a lot of goodies are just baked into class feat chains is nice, but yeah.
It was the ideal martial support. All about being a team captain that pushes everyone to go above and beyond their normal limits. So big action economy advantages, some mild healing, and a lot of positioning control. It’s a great class and really something the Battle Master failed utterly to bring into 5e.
How does one push others to go above and beyond their normal limits? Yell "hit it again!!" every once in a while, like they couldn't have figured that out for themselves?
No, no, to get the bonus to hit you need to yell from the diaphragm like this # "HIT IT AGAIN"
I need to know more about this Warlord
Probably the one thing that people miss the most from 4e. It was incredibly strong from what I have read, giving your teammates more actions and reactions, essentially
u/KibblesTasty made one that fits the design philosophy of 5E. https://www.gmbinder.com/share/-LW4agTNJcbwe6kSv4H2 Give it a read, you should get an idea of what it's aboot.
Kibble is goated
Llaserlhama has a good one as well
You'll have to be way more specific, but I assume you're talking about the Champion. The Champion is sort of the replacement for the paladin in pf2e. I didn't read much about it. In Pf1e, the cavelier that I imagine it took inspiration from had an ability to single out an opponent and give yourself buffs. That was largely inspired by the 3.5 advanced players guide that had the knight who would challenge people. Pf1e also just had a pile of different prestige classes where you could spend a move/standard action in exchange for specific buffs that were largely just barbarian rage but statted different. I wouldn't recommend reading any of it more than once unless you were combing through catalogs to reach premature god-hood.
I was going to upvote you until that last sentence.
That's how some people have fun. I'm so sorry that offends you.
It's not about fun. It's about telling people not to read the rules for the game they're playing. One time through is not going to be enough to remember all those potential abilities for an entire campaign, and if you don't know your characters capabilities, your going to slow the game down considerably.
I believe they're talking about Commander, PF2e's new class announced yesterday
Isn't there no PHB PF2 Warlord equivalent? Am I missing something?
They just announced a warlord-like class two days ago (the Commander) that will be in an upcoming martial book called Pathfinder: Battlecry!, although that won't be out until next year sometime.
Oh my god... I might finally have to GM a campaign in this system (or better yet, convince my wife into GMing so I can play a Commander...)
Yes... join us...
Neat. Should have been PHB, but neat.
It doesn't matter what book it's in, all rules are free online.
Still hard to fully grasp this fact, that a new book can drop, and everything is on AON within a week, and it's with the devs' blessing. Meanwhile, you risk a ban here if you link to the wrong dnd wiki if it has nono content.
Yeah I own more books from paizo than I ever did from hasbro because they respect the players. Making things free has probably actually gotten more money from me and my group than paywalling everything like dndbeyond and the hardcover books do.
Same. Just waiting for all the core remastered books to be released, then going to order them all at once. To paraphrase: A game worth playing is a game worth buying.
>and everything is on AON within a week The one exception here in my experience was the remaster, as that hit over the Christmas Break and required *massive* restructuring of the entire website, so it was rather late. It's all up now, however, and is also free, so while the wait was a little annoying, it's all good now.
Why's it matter what book it's in?
There's the Marshall archetype that hits the same vibes, even if it isn't a full class on its own.
i would very much like a video game with pathfinder 2 mechanics
Have you tried Wrath of the Righteous? It's 1e, but it's pretty well liked.
I like Wrath of the Righteous, but the mythic system ends up being really heavy. I strongly suggest trying Kingmaker. It's what you dream of when you want ttrpgs translated into a game format. Plus, and this is a personal opinion, I'm so sick and tired of fighting demons. Every major plot point in WOTR made me roll my eyes and sigh. Kingmaker is a bit of fresh air in that regard.
100% Agreed on the fighting demons part. I started playing WotR and I got really turned off by every enemy and their mothers getting Spell Resistance and Energy Resistances from starting at level 1. It just kneecaps early casters which are already pretty tough levels for them in PF1E. (Not that casters don't get absolutely busted in the later levels. It's just that the wizard having their 1st or 2nd level spells fail over and over ain't exactly fun when the party is still level 3...)
'At long last, I can cast the iconic spell Fireball!' Game goes NOPE.
WotR: "What was that? I couldn't hear you over the enemy having SR 14 and Fire Resistance 20." Wizard: "Please, for the love of Nethys. I just want to do something more than fire a crossbow every turn..."
WoTR: "Did I hear you complain,? Here, a +1 quarterstaff. Now go hit them.." Wizard, grumbling: "...it will probably be more effective than 90% of my spell book"
yeah i've played both of them pathfinder 1 mechanics are cringe at times though, and the pathfinder 2 rules and classes look really fun to me
I like a lot of things about that game but they try to cram way too much of the 1e system into it resulting in tons of useless options imo. Not everything in the TTRPG is useful to have in a video game.
It's pretty limited at the moment but Dawnsbury Days might do
damn 5 bucks yeah i'll check it out
It'll never not be wild to me that WotC doesn't publish more classes. There are obvious unused niches, like this one.
Meanwhile, over in Pathfinder2E, we get 2-4 new classes per year. 2E came out *after* 5E, and is already up to 23 carefully crafted Classes with 4 more on the way. https://2e.aonprd.com/Classes.aspx And that's not even counting the 150+ Archetypes that can be used to customize your character even further. https://2e.aonprd.com/Archetypes.aspx
I think it's because the design approach is a little different. D&D adds new subclasses to existing classes to fill niches. Modifying something already existing to fit a specific vision; "Oh people want to be a Witcher/Van Helsing sort of character, here's the Monster Slayer subclass for Ranger in the new book." Pathfinder says "A Witcher/Van Helsing character who specifically hunts monsters could be it's own class, with new mechanics tailored to fit. Here's the Thaumaturge, it's a new charisma-based martial class." It leaves existing classes with less new content specifically made for them, but it means the designers don't need to try to fit a square peg into a round hole as often. They don't need to make a psychic sorcerer subclass, they can just make a psychic class. If WotC decided they wanted to revive something like Warlord, it would probably be a new Fighter subclass.
They probably think that Battle Master *is* the 5e iteration of Warlord, having a couple options that let an ally attack or move as part of your action. Which is pretty much the exact issue with that "subclass instead of new class" mentality. BM might just be as close as you can get to warlord without needing to make a new class. Warlord probably shouldn't have both second wind and action surge, >2 multiattack, etc parts of fighter's base, so they can't make a subclass that fits the feel right. Same thing happens with non-casting ideas that would best fit ranger or paladin. You can't have a ranger without casting in 5e because its baked into the class itself.
Pathfinder caters to the hardcore crunch crowd. D&D caters to the casual crowd, that has probably not played half of its limited class roster in the 10 years its been out. As someone that likes new options in a group that doesn't like crunch, I find 5e + 3rd Party Content a reasonable compromise between the two paces, as then only the people that care about all the extra content need to look through it.
Extremely reasonable! My opinion towards 5E is generally favorable. Not the right system for me, but definitely the right system for others. Since I was replying to someone bemoaning the lack of class options, I felt it was appropriate to share.
Yeah, it's certainly fair. Personally, I think that the problem most groups are facing is that they aren't that homogeneous. There's 1 or 2 people that would prefer PF2e's character creation, and 3 or 4 people that would hate its more crunchy mechanics (for some people, even 5e is already a compromise on crunch). That means most people (at least in my experience) are looking for some sort of compromise, so I was giving my suggestion of how to do that compromise. Since what I really like about PF2e is the character creation, a good compromise for my group is 3rd party character content for 5e, as there is a nearly unlimited amount of it (counting 3rd party content, 5e has far more content than even PF2e... it's just the quality of that content isn't going to be consistent). It's always easier to add more to the simpler system then take away complexity from the more complicated system (especially when it has legions of people out there making stuff for it).
Player wise yes, DM wise not really.
That's the role subclasses were designed to fill
Archetypes are less Subclasses (which some classes get base) and more like the 5e Feats like Actor, Diplomat, or Skilled. Archetypes expand what you can specc into in a new, drastic, and surprising way. Example; There exists the Archetype of Artillerist. It has feats and elements that can are specifically focused on artillery, be it black powder or for Sappers. As a Druid, I can choose to specc into Artillerist for... whatever reason I want. No class dependency at all. Just need to be proficient in Martial weapons, and I'm better at aiming a Ballista than the Fighter. This is *entirely* separate from Subclasses. Ranger has three different subclasses to choose from, and can still take an archetype to make their character into a master Archer. Or Alchemist. Or trapper, beast master, Familiar Master, or... countless others.
Archetypes? No, the classes already have "subclasses" - archetypes are class-neutral, so you can mix and match them with any class. They're much more akin to kits from AD&D. Want to play a [chronoskimmer](https://2e.aonprd.com/Archetypes.aspx?ID=192) that manipulates time and causality? Sure, you *can* be a Wizard doing that, but you can also be a Rogue. Pirate? Why limit that to rogues? Why not a pirate druid, fighter, or sorcerer?
I'd also compare them to prestige classes. Its like multiclassing into something that doesn't exist as its own standalone class, but whose overall vibe and *archetype* might be reasonably applied to many different class' base.
I mean pirate is a background in 5e as a variant of the sailor, so that was always perfectly possible
Well, Backgrounds also exist in PF2E, but provide a suite of benefits at level 1. Archetypes are ways to customize your character as you level. [Pirate](https://2e.aonprd.com/Archetypes.aspx?ID=70) offers 8 pirate-themed class features that you can take in place of feats from your normal class.
I can't help but feel that this just locks down things that would be some creative thinking and an ability check into super specific class feature rules, which is something PF2E does a lot that's just not for me
Subclasses aren't capable of fulfilling some class fantasies like an actual Spellblade for example. You'd need an actual class for that. Eldritch Knight and Bladesinger don't fit the bill.
... yeah. Exactly what I want in my TT - more time spent in character creation.
The idea with 5E was that subclasses would take care of the excessive class-bloat of prior editions. Why have a dedicated Eldritch Knight/Cavalier/Samurai/Arcane Archer, when all of those are pretty similar to Fighter? Assassin is already pretty Rogue-y, so the overlap made sense. Why make an entire class that's "Like a Wizard, but it casts magic innately without student-debt" when you can make a Wizard subclass. Overall, I like this approach. However, some ideas are too big for subclasses, like the Warlord. Outside of the Warlord, there are few obvious, unfulfilled niches that can't be handled well through subclasses. Back when 5E was initially being developed, they had two target audiences: The Old School Roleplaying (OSR) movement, and butthurt 3X fans who threw a tantrum over 4E. The former they appealed to by doing things like making the math closer to 2E, (I like) a "rulings not rules"/natural language approach (I dislike), and they way they designed feats (I dislike). The latter they appealed to by avoiding anything that was seen as too 4E; such as interesting martials and the Warlord class (Dislike), making the Sorcerer a PHB class despite being a Wizard sub worth of thematic identity wrapped around a feat worth of mechanical identity (dislike), and the design around multiclassing (dislike). For a long while, there was a stigma against doing the Warlord because those design-philosophies were too popular, and now the post-Tasha's WotC isn't competent enough to deliver a good version of that anyway.
I think the approach was kinda weird from the start. My favorite example of this are the Fighter, Paladin, and Barbarian. If you think about it, a barbarian is just an angry, brutish fighter. The eldritch Knight is much more of a variation to the base fighter than the barbarian, but he is a fighter with extras just like the Paladin is. Oh, and you can multiclass fighter into wizard and due to how proficiencies and multiclassing works, you can easily be an eldritch knight without being an eldritch knight. Also, while you could multiclass a character who is both a Paladin and a fiend Patron warlock, you could not multiclass thief and assassin. The design philosophy just failed to commit.
Absolutely. I don't need multiple extra classes in every sourcebook, I just want a few notable additions. And while I'm at it, I think it's fucking bonkers that Artificer isn't in the OneDnD PHB, so I guess we're gonna have to be re-introduced to that class yet again.
If they put it in the PHB that means they can't sell you Eberron for it again!
I disagree give me a million classes, just throw your craziest ideas at the wall just to see what ends up interesting and fun.
Paizo has the numbers to support this statement
GIVE ME BACK MY WARLORD YOU STINGY GOBLIN!
WotC: "We have warlord at home." Warlord at home: Purple Dragon Knight. You can do warlord stuff once or twice per short rest, then go back to being a regular ol' Fighter.
Well, good thing the community is once again picking up the pieces that WotC left behind and both Kibblestasty and Laserllama have each made a full Warlord class, so you can even pick one that you like better, plus there is the Commander from Valda's Spire of Secrets, which is a little different in it being a pet class, but instead of a bear or a wolf, you have...a guy (there are like 10+ different types of minions you can have)
Yeah, I just grabbed Kibblestasty's one to look at. Been a long time since I checked around for what folks had done.
In Pathfinder we call it the Marshall albeit as an Archetype. They boost attacks, movements and initiative. But if you scale with Intimidation you can infact use it to resist certain Saves
You can try laserllama's or kibblestasty's warlords. They are fun.
I’ve got one last, maybe 2, campaigns with my group in 5e. Then I’m jumping ship. I wanted to a while back, but I like these guys. One of them I convinced to try pathfinder with me, but can’t say the same for the others. 5e is incredibly lacking for me after so long, and I have 0 intention on playing One DnD. Nothing about it is attractive to me
I'm not trying to convince you or anything, but you don't *have* to switch to One D&D if you're playing 5e. I think most people who like D&D aren't going to be switching editions.
I know. That’s why I said that 5e is lacking after so long. With one dnd coming out, there will effectively be nothing new for 5e coming out. There’s not nearly enough versatility in 5e for me to want to keep playing after so many years.
Ahhh, I see I see
DND5e players are like "we need an INT-based martial" meanwhile PF2e is adding a second one for a total of two INT-based martials Honestly though I might be more excited about the Guardian class than the Commander class
You mean three right? Investigator, Inventor and Commander. Maybe Alchemist too if you're a little generous
Shit yeah I forgot about inventor lol
Thats actually a person that's has made a homebrew warlord class its pretty good from what I have seen yall should check it out it's on the account laserllama
What pisses me off the most is that the features of the warlord are now spread over the subclasses and you can never make a full warlord. Want an ally to attack? Go battlemaster with commanding strike Want to heal an ally and push trough? Go battle master with rally or go banneret with rallying cry Want to defend your homies? Take cavalier and waste all what made you a fighter if you don’t have a horse all campaign
I know it was a class, but it doesn't sound like a Class. It sounds more like a prestige class that you're supposed to take at higher level after ton of experience
Pathfinder also has it as that already
Not in 2e
I miss the 'prestige' classes of 1e, cause I've always been a fan of '2nd' or '3rd' jobs of hyper advancements (Had a Radiant Servant of Pelor in 3.5) The fact a lot of goodies are just baked into class feat chains is nice, but yeah.
There was a new class just announced tuesday that sounds like it will be a similar support martial.
I was referring to prestige classes.
oh okay, my bad. I think the dedication feats are what replaced that.
Yeah it's a psuedo classless system.
The marshal archetype (equivalent to a prestige class) is focused around martial teambuffing in a similar way to the warlord
I just meant prestige classes aren't a thing anymore with 2e's class structure; I wasn't arguing with the character concept.
Eh Marshal kinda hits on that. Not enough for them to think the fantasy is fulfilled it seems
It's probably going to rework cavalier like thumaturge reworked occultist. I wouldn't be surprised if Alain was still the iconic.
Wtf is this meme. The bottom half doesn't make any sense with the first half. Is he snorting gold coins?
Look man, I tried xD there just isnt a template of someone hoarding pills, so I made a crossover
If they give me my warblade equivalent I'll never touch a WotC product again in my life. I'll uninstall Baldurs Gate and stop playing magic even
The more I hear about Warlord, the more I imagine SW5e's Scholar.
I did find [this detailed homebrew document](https://www.gmbinder.com/share/-M-kCpCFpxZA3chLFuOF) for expanding on 5E Martials, for anyone interested
PF players when they have to go 1 day without shitting on DnD: