I was thinking the warlock would be the best chassis for a new warlord class. Means the warlord would have a couple of major abilities per short rest (like the warlock's spells) and a list of maneuvers/tactics known (like the warlock's invocations). It would mean finding level equivalent tactics for the warlock's invocations, but that's fine. I'd add medium armor to the warlord, however.
D&D 5E (2014) Warlording the fighter
- Thread starter fuindordm
- Start date
aramis erak
Legend
Please do not misquote me. It pisses me off, and is irresponsible and quite asinine behavior.
I said exactly what I meant - the ground is already mechanically covered, and only 4e-style "be able to fill every niche from each power source" is a justification for warlord as it was presented in 4e, and that was a needless money grab by WOTC.
CapnZapp
Legend
Liked. (the tapatalk way)
CapnZapp
Legend
And yet again you try to peddle your opinion as fact.
As you can see by this thread, others have other views.
Obryn
Hero
u mad?
...
Seriously, though, between the edition warring, crankiness, and missing the point, this is a pro post. Well done. [emoji38]
Sacrosanct
Legend
I haven't been following the conversation, but I totally agree with aramis that intentionally misquoting someone pisses me off too. I find it highly immature and the first sign that you can't address what I actually said, but have to spin it to a strawman that you can argue against. Also, and probably the most importantly, don't give people who are skimming the threads the impression that I said something I didn't, because it does happen when they come back and say, "you said X back then" when it never happened.
Pulling out the "u mad" meme is equally immature, IMO, and there's no point in even talking anymore when you start acting like my 14 year old to his friends.
Obryn
Hero
Cool. I'll quit the dumb memes and everyone else can quit the edition war ("money grab", really?) claptrap and we can all be a big happy family. Deal?
Because I'll tell you what, that's what tells ME if we're having a conversation or if it's time to break out the dumb memes.
Sacrosanct
Legend
Cool. I'll quit the dumb memes and everyone else can quit the edition war ("money grab", really?) claptrap and we can all be a big happy family. Deal?
How is saying "money grab" is an edition war? Examples can be pulled from every edition that are clearly money grabs. Hell, 2e was one of the worst offenders with all the crap they put out to get money. Just because someone disagrees with you about your favorite edition doesn't make it edition warring, and no one (of any edition) has to right to shut down dissenting opinions from their favored version.
Obryn
Hero
I was pulling out an example, and don't want to do this forum thing where we're arguing about examples.
I have no ability to shut down anything, but I will engage with debate based on its sincerity.
The argument that the Warlord exists merely as "grid filling" is inaccurate. Its role and performance were quite distinct from other 4e leaders, and nothing in 5e approaches that role. There's been a lot of specifics over the past pages enumerating exactly why. Entering a thread devoted to figuring out implementations of that role in 5e, after pages of discussion, to thread dump and claim opinion as fact? Want to talk rude?
aramis erak
Legend
Quite true. 2E was rife with money-grab. The PHBR series had lots of repeated text - the class ones could easily have been done as a single hardcover and given the same range of character options in 1/4 the mass. And there was a lot of dead space in several of them.
Similar Threads
