Pathfinder 1E Elephant in the room/thread Forked Thread: Pathfinder - sell me

[Jack99]

It's implied in the warlord's powers. The problem is embedded in the rules.

If they were, we would be seeing a gazillion posts about those problems. Except, we do not. They only people I see complain about those issues are people like you, ie those who do not and probably never have played 4e.

What an amazing coincidence.

 

[rounser]

If they were, we would be seeing a gazillion posts about those problems.

You still seem unable to dispute my points on their own merits, though, so maybe people will begin to take notice.

 

[Dannager]

You still seem unable to dispute my points on their own merits, though, so maybe people will begin to take notice.

Yeah, a year after the game comes out, thousands of gamers suddenly realize "Wait a second, I hate this class!"

As for why we haven't disputed your points, they don't make any substantive claim to begin with. A few people have tried to point out to you that your perceptions of the game are wrong, but those people have been ignored, unsurprisingly.

If you had a concrete complain instead of the equivalent of "I don't like the way I think the game works!" we might be able to get somewhere.

 

[RefinedBean]

You still seem unable to dispute my points on their own merits, though, so maybe people will begin to take notice.

The "warlord". Doesn't fit an adventuring party where there are no soldiers to order around,

That would depend on your definition of "soldier," of course, and order around is implying character personality, which could be quite varied.

name not appropriate to level or definition of term "warlord"

A guy who leads a band of like-minded people into battle, and wins consistently, isn't considered a "warlord?" I'D sure as heck consider him one. Also, history is chock-full of figures that fit the definition.

No D&D archetype except if we redefine D&D conceptually as no more than a skirmish wargame

Oh my heavens, the game expanded a bit.

You've never seen front-line fighters issuing orders, tending to the fallen quickly before rushing back to battle, and tactically opening the other party members for some awesome moments? I saw it plenty back when I was playing 3.5.

undermines the independence of other PCs and the nature of the D&D hero and adventuring party by giving orders like they were underlings rather than peers

Again, all that is a roleplaying choice on the part of the person playing the Warlord. It's not reflected at all in the description of the Warlord, and unless you really think the word "command" in the powers description is really implying that the Warlord is some sort of jerk...I don't know what to tell you. That's how you're reading it, but that's just one spin on the whole concept.

magically wiser at the specialists role than the specialists

I don't even know what this MEANS. Who are these specialists? What are they specializing in? Skills? He gets the same amount of skills as the Cleric.

There. Those are ALL your points addressed.

I also don't appreciate your insinuations that I was making ad-hominem attacks. You're coloring your perception of the class by implying character personality and flavor that simply isn't reflected in the text.

 

[rounser]

That would depend on your definition of "soldier," of course, and order around is implying character personality, which could be quite varied.

Heroes are not soldiers. Soldiers can be heroes, though. Point not refuted.

A guy who leads a band of like-minded people into battle, and wins consistently, isn't considered a "warlord?" I'D sure as heck consider him one. Also, history is chock-full of figures that fit the definition.

Go look in a dictionary. Note the military and political references. Point not refuted.

Oh my heavens, the game expanded a bit.

No, 4E's bad design just violated a central D&D conceit, the nature of the adventuring party. Point not refuted.

Again, all that is a roleplaying choice on the part of the person playing the Warlord.

No, it's encoded in the powers, and "command" means exactly that. Point not refuted.

I don't even know what this MEANS. Who are these specialists?

The other classes. Point not refuted.

There. Those are ALL your points addressed.

Five attempts, zero out of five by my reckoning.

 

[RefinedBean]

Five attempts, zero out of five by my reckoning.

Well, your reckoning is wrong. The personal spin you're putting on this class is the only reason you're seeing all these "problems."

I'm sorry, rounser. I wish there was something I could say that would get you to come around to reason.

 

[rounser]

I wish there was something I could say that would get you to come around to reason.

Because you know "teh troof"! And anyone who disagrees with you is irrational! Of course!

Look, I can disagree with you, but I'm not so naive or arrogant as to believe that everyone who disagrees with me is failing to listen to reason. That's just ridiculous. Maybe you should consider that you may be no infallible bastion of reason yourself.

 

[Jack99]

You still seem unable to dispute my points on their own merits, though, so maybe people will begin to take notice.

Sorry, but you do not get to decide if your points has been disputed. No one is trying to convince you, since that would be futile. Since those of us who play 4e seem to think the warlord is great and works just fine in D&D, your points are worth just as much as a minion facing a fighter with rain of blows active.

 

[Belphanior]

God, the "Mr Shouty Man" argument again? Didn't we bury that even before 4e was released? In a Sell Me On Pathfinder thread no less?

And what's the problem exactly? Think carefully about what the words 'rogue' and 'warlock' mean, and contrast it to how D&D uses them. How come they get a pass but the warlord doesn't?

 

[rounser]

How come they get a pass but the warlord doesn't?

Because they don't impinge on the independence of other characters and their status as peers rather than subordinates, nor the central conceit of the adventuring party as a group of heroes rather than a hierarchy of soldiers taking orders. The nearest thing to an argument you have there is "pick pockets" with the rogue, but any character can steal from or kill others. The warlord's powers imply compliance with their orders implicitly.