Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Warlord as a Fighter option; Assassin as a Rogue option
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 6046542" data-attributes="member: 2067"><p>Exactly. Hence the thought experiment's abilities to prevent damage, grant attacks, and move people around when it is not their turn. </p><p></p><p>It seems that those saying "this doesn't feel like a warlord" are mostly saying that it doesn't feel <em>powerful enough</em>. It has the ability to grant attacks and dodges and shifts on the fly. It can wrong-foot and reduce HP loss. These effects are balanced for at-will use and so are not big battlefield revolutions, and ergo, not a warlord in their eyes. Rather than saying that the thought experiment doesn't do anything right, my understanding is that they're largely saying it doesn't go far enough. </p><p></p><p>I'm sympathetic. The D&DNext fighter also doesn't have insanely significant combat-changing epochal powers of revolutionary combat dominance. The rogue doesn't either. Arguably, the wizard and the cleric do, via magic.</p><p></p><p>I think that to please a lot of 4e fans, the game is going to need an option to introduce those effects for classes that don't use magic. I can absolutely see that as a module, and a good one. One that doesn't need to interface with expertise dice at all, but hypothetically could. It's a legit thing that 4e brought to the table that was a lot of fun for people that doesn't necessarily need to be thrown out utterly. It's not for everyone, but it's a good opt-in kind of system. </p><p></p><p>I'm less clear on how that has much relevance to whether or not this particular example meets the goals of being what a warlord-as-fighting-style might look like, since one of the criteria for the thought experiment is that we stay within the fighting style mechanics, and thus it mandates that we stay within at-will, on-the-fly kind of mechanics, which, because you could do them every turn, <em>necessarily</em> aren't going to be tremendous battle-changing events. </p><p></p><p>Yeah, Next should have some "Martial Encounter and Daily" kind of system, so that people can have big dramatic effects without magic. It can use stamina dice or rare instances or natural 20's or whatever other kind of subsystem folks want, and in fact could use a diversity of them.</p><p></p><p>No, I don't agree that a warlord's identity is wrapped up in those big abilities necessarily. Size isn't enough of a distinguishing trait for me, and besides, every class got big booms in 4e, the Warlord's just looked a particular way. In fact, they looked a lot like those at-will abilities, just blown up to bigger sizes.</p><p></p><p>I say this as a man who has seen at least 3 different warlords in play, one of which I've played myself for about 5 levels. As someone who respects the warrior-leader archetype, and who would like to see it better supported than it was before 4e. </p><p></p><p>And even if you think I'm dead wrong, if you can't believe I'm genuine about what I'm saying here, it's probably not going to be productive to post in the thread. Because I'm pretty much done paying attention to posts that try to de-legitimize and invalidate <em>me personally</em> instead of or even in addition to addressing the ideas I'm expressing.</p><p></p><p><img src="http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/044/778/hatersgonnacat.jpg?1318992465" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="I'm A Banana, post: 6046542, member: 2067"] Exactly. Hence the thought experiment's abilities to prevent damage, grant attacks, and move people around when it is not their turn. It seems that those saying "this doesn't feel like a warlord" are mostly saying that it doesn't feel [I]powerful enough[/I]. It has the ability to grant attacks and dodges and shifts on the fly. It can wrong-foot and reduce HP loss. These effects are balanced for at-will use and so are not big battlefield revolutions, and ergo, not a warlord in their eyes. Rather than saying that the thought experiment doesn't do anything right, my understanding is that they're largely saying it doesn't go far enough. I'm sympathetic. The D&DNext fighter also doesn't have insanely significant combat-changing epochal powers of revolutionary combat dominance. The rogue doesn't either. Arguably, the wizard and the cleric do, via magic. I think that to please a lot of 4e fans, the game is going to need an option to introduce those effects for classes that don't use magic. I can absolutely see that as a module, and a good one. One that doesn't need to interface with expertise dice at all, but hypothetically could. It's a legit thing that 4e brought to the table that was a lot of fun for people that doesn't necessarily need to be thrown out utterly. It's not for everyone, but it's a good opt-in kind of system. I'm less clear on how that has much relevance to whether or not this particular example meets the goals of being what a warlord-as-fighting-style might look like, since one of the criteria for the thought experiment is that we stay within the fighting style mechanics, and thus it mandates that we stay within at-will, on-the-fly kind of mechanics, which, because you could do them every turn, [I]necessarily[/I] aren't going to be tremendous battle-changing events. Yeah, Next should have some "Martial Encounter and Daily" kind of system, so that people can have big dramatic effects without magic. It can use stamina dice or rare instances or natural 20's or whatever other kind of subsystem folks want, and in fact could use a diversity of them. No, I don't agree that a warlord's identity is wrapped up in those big abilities necessarily. Size isn't enough of a distinguishing trait for me, and besides, every class got big booms in 4e, the Warlord's just looked a particular way. In fact, they looked a lot like those at-will abilities, just blown up to bigger sizes. I say this as a man who has seen at least 3 different warlords in play, one of which I've played myself for about 5 levels. As someone who respects the warrior-leader archetype, and who would like to see it better supported than it was before 4e. And even if you think I'm dead wrong, if you can't believe I'm genuine about what I'm saying here, it's probably not going to be productive to post in the thread. Because I'm pretty much done paying attention to posts that try to de-legitimize and invalidate [I]me personally[/I] instead of or even in addition to addressing the ideas I'm expressing. [IMG]http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/044/778/hatersgonnacat.jpg?1318992465[/IMG] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Warlord as a Fighter option; Assassin as a Rogue option
Top