Looks like it's time for a Warlord Sub-Forum Again...somehow.
Hussar
Legend
Not rsure really though.
When it's pointed out to you that all the things you don't like about a warlord are already in the game, apparently that doesn't matter. Any counter point raised just gets shrugged off. Warlords are OP. Nope. Players shouldn't be able to tell you how you feel? Sorry there's a bard right there as well as battlemaster and mastermind. So, what's left?
Mecheon
Sacabambaspis
Well, given player who has annoyed a god enough and shouldn't get Cleric healing (Which, let's be honest, is the same argument) should DM fiat, I'm going to up and say that Elfcrusher's case should be DM fiat as well
AaronOfBarbaria
Adventurer
I will preface this by saying that I've not found myself in the position necessary to feel the negative feelings that some have stated a warlord character in their party could give them - because I am so rarely a player, rather than the DM, and the few warlords that I saw in play during 4th edition "my action is that you take an action" type, nor were they in play while I was playing rather than DMing.
However, I'd like to take a shot at figuring out why the following things don't create the same negative feelings, or at least create those feelings with low enough intensity to not cause the same reaction. If anyone that has felt the negative feelings mentioned thinks anything I say on the matter is off-base, please let me know.
Bardic inspiration has a long window of use (10 minutes), and has a variety of use options (ability check, attack roll, saving throw, and war college adds damage and AC against incoming attack) that are at the player of the receiving character's choice for when and how to use the bonus.
It seems like the reason the reaction to this feature isn't as potent as the reaction to the idea of the warlord class because it's not "Your character does X now because my character says so" so much as it is "Here's a bonus, use it within the next 10 minutes, if you get a chance."
Maybe the difference in reaction is as simple as not every table uses feats since they are specifically labelled "optional" so it's not viewed as being "officially included". Maybe it's just the "Come on guys, we can do this!" vibe the feat can give upon reading not matching the "Everybody do what I say" vibe that is worried will come from the warlord class.
This one is a bit trickier for me to find a reason why it doesn't spark the same reaction. I would level a guess at it being a minor thing that the fighter in question does - minor both in that not every battle-master will have that maneuver, and that it's not likely to be the go-to thing for a character that does have it to be doing (going buy the assessments I've seen that it's not a very good maneuver choice) - while it would be a (if not the) major feature of the warlord as a class according to at least a good portion of the folks I've seen asking for a full warlord class.
I have seen actual games of D&D where-in one frustrated player said to another player something along the lines of "Just let me play my character." I admit it was because of the attitude with which the player saying "You should do X" was presenting the idea, rather than because there were game mechanics attached to the statement - but I can see the same kind of frustration arising with it being game mechanics, not just another player, saying "You should do X".
Tony Vargas
Legend
I visualized that before I could stop myself.
