Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 4454152" data-attributes="member: 22779">My personal beef with Rounser's interpretation is this:is far too extreme a point of view.  (I know, irony, thy taste is good)  There are all sorts of ways you can take a warlord and make it make sense in game.  The idea of a character who inspires other characters to do things through his force of personality is hardly stretching anything.  About the worst thing you can say about warlords is the name.Heck, in 3e, if you gave bard a decent BAB and some bonus feats, you'd have something that approximates pretty darn well a warlord.  The Truenamer I had in one campaign worked EXACTLY like a warlord as another example.  But, no matter how many examples are brought up, no matter how much people say that it DOES fit with D&D, Rounser has flat out decided that it doesn't fit.  No matter what.  There's no room for conversation there.  It's done.  For years, we've seen D&D try to do the Flavour First approach to games.  Stronger in earlier editions and weaker in 3e, but, still Flavour First.  And IT DOESN'T WORK.  Thirty years of doing this and every time it results in the same thing - broken mechanics with piss poor balance that destroy games.How many times are people going to get told that the way to take control of the game is to ban all splats before we accept that flavour first is a BAD IDEA?  By and large, every splat out there tries to go flavour first.  And the power creep just gets worse and worse.  Orb spells anyone?  There's a flavour first idea - conjurers who can create orbs of matter/energy and hurl them at their enemies.  Sounds cool right?  Until you realize that you've just made spells that make evocation pretty much pointless.We've done it.  We've done it over and over again.  Same thing.  Same input in, same output out.</blockquote>

Verification