D&D General The Crab Bucket Fallacy

[UngeheuerLich]

Are you talking about 4e here? I said it worked, I just didn't like it, and I explained why. I really don't understand your argument here, but apparently I touched some sort of pain point for you.

I noticed that too. If the server did not crash back then, everyone could see how I always was on the 4e side and played it extensively. But as soon as I say, it just turned out to not work for us (we stopped playing d&d altogether about half a year before dndnext was a thing), someone tells me it was our fault, because we played it wrong. Maybe. But that was always how we wanted to play and 2e and 5e was a better fit for us. And even 3e for quite a while (although I burnt out there too and was relieved when 4e shook things up).

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Do you want the fighter to be better too, or do you want that to be the fighter?

I said I want the fighter and the warlord be unified. Bolstering your allies should always have been in their repertoire and leading warbands. They would still be not as powerful as a caster who can cast wish. But everyone would love them being around.

I mean in 5e the bard may bolster allies and be a full caster...

 

[Micah Sweet]

I noticed that too. If the server did not crash back then, everyone could see how I always was on the 4e side and played it extensively. But as soon as I say, it just turned out to not work for us (we stopped playing d&d altogether about half a year before dndnext was a thing), someone tells me it was our fault, because we played it wrong. Maybe. But that was always how we wanted to play and 2e and 5e was a better fit for us. And even 3e for quite a while (althoigh I burnt out there too and was relieved when 4e shaked things up).

4e is the most defensive D&D edition.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I said I want the fighter and the warlord be unified. Bolstering your allies should always have been in their repertoire and leading warbands. They would still be not as powerful as a caster who can cast wish. But everyone would love them being around.

I mean in 5e the bard may bolster allies and be a full caster...

What if you want to just kick a&* on your own, with no desire to be a leader of men? What class should you play?

Serious question. I actually like your idea on its face.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I said I want the fighter and the warlord be unified. Bolstering your allies should always have been in their repertoire and leading warbands. They would still be not as powerful as a caster who can cast wish. But everyone would love them being around.

I mean in 5e the bard may bolster allies and be a full caster...

That can't really be done on the Fighter Chassis, it's, well, too focused on fighting.

The implied space for a Warlord in 5e would be something like "Warlord would be to Battlemaster as (Bladesinger?) Wizard is to Eldritch Knight."

 

[Tony Vargas]

What if you want to just kick a&* on your own, with no desire to be a leader of men? What class should you play?

Serious question. I actually like your idea on its face.

Ironically, in 1e AD&D, not Fighter to level 9, "Lord"
(Actually, a number of classes in TSR D&D attracted follower at some point - and EGG sure wrote the DMG like there was an expectation of henchlings and hirepersons to the limit allowed by your CHA, as well...)

Unifying Warlord & Fighter would be like unifying Cleric and Paladin or Druid and Ranger, I suppose....

 

[Oofta]

You missed my point. Even if the OP could mathematically prove his point, people would still argue.

It's kind of like arguing about who's most important in an (American) football game. Obviously the QB is ... until he doesn't have a defensive line and they get sacked every turn. Obviously the guy who scores the most touchdowns is the most important, or maybe it's the offensive linemen that put the pressure on the opposition's QB to stop the other team from scoring a bazillion points. It depends on what you think is important and how you measure it.

Different people value different things so different people will come to different conclusions. As the saying goes, there's lies, damn lies and statistics.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Ironically, in 1e AD&D, not Fighter to level 9, "Lord"
(Actually, a number of classes in TSR D&D attracted follower at some point - and EGG sure wrote the DMG like there was an expectation of henchlings and hirepersons to the limit allowed by your CHA, as well...)

Unifying Warlord & Fighter would be like unifying Cleric and Paladin or Druid and Ranger, I suppose....

There sure was. I remain in favor henchmen, hirelings, and name-level followers. Domain game for the win!

 

[UngeheuerLich]

That can't really be done on the Fighter Chassis, it's, well, too focused on fighting.

The implied space for a Warlord in 5e would be something like "Warlord would be to Battlemaster as (Bladesinger?) Wizard is to Eldritch Knight."

I think martials have enough space to fit that in.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

What if you want to just kick a&* on your own, with no desire to be a leader of men? What class should you play?

Serious question. I actually like your idea on its face.

Barbarian! (or rogue or monk).