Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Zustiur" data-source="post: 6015039" data-attributes="member: 1544">Ah, but strength shouldn't be important. At most it should be his secondary stat. If the archetype is about being a leader; inspiring, tactical and strategic, then strength doesn't actually play a part. Sure, if you want him in the front line, strength will help, but that is not part of the archetype that the class is trying to represent.I realize I'm contradicting the 4E PHB here, but I believe this is where a lot of the arguments come from. Particularly, 'warlord is just an inspiring fighter'. Strength is already the focus of fighters and barbarians. There isn't a heck of a lot of distinction between those two as is; adding strength based warlords into the mix just makes the situation worse.  With your current build; what does intelligence actually do? It allows a number of tactics, and it can be used in place of strength on one particular attack. The first has major importance, the second is actually a waste, and that's it. There are no other mentions of intelligence at all. I say the second is a waste - you can use it instead of your strength to hit... with a class where you've decided that strength is the primary attribute. So I can use my secondary attribute instead of my primary attribute to attack. No thanks.This is an issue I've been paying attention to lately. Taking the wizard as my example; in 2E, intelligence affected Chance to Learn Spell, and Max # of Spells/level, but not anything else. Yet I gather many groups didn't like the % chances or max spells, so they just ignored those rules (in fact, Max Spells was clearly labelled as optional), which means that intelligence wasn't actually required to be a wizard. Oops!You're in danger of treading down the same path.The other danger I see here is the potential splitting of the class between primary attributes. If you take my advice and demote strength to a secondary; then intelligence or charisma become potential primary attributes, with (as yet) no clear winner. It is critical that we don't repeat the mistake of the early 4E cleric - two mutually exclusive primary attributes (Str and Wis). I'd avoid this as follows:Intelligence determines the number of concurrent effects. Charisma determines the strength of those effects. Strength is thrown in for good luck.A warlord should be able to get away with 12 or 13 starting strength, because hitting things isn't his shtick; in fact, he could probably get away with 8 strength if he uses dex for ranged attacks and leads from the back. Intelligence focused or Charisma focused should work equally well, but in different ways. One provides broader support, the other provides more powerful but more constrained support.With flatter math; having a lower starting strength shouldn't be too much of a detriment to the warlord. He can still hit things, he just won't do so as often as the fighter. This in turn would help with differentiating the fighter from other classes.</blockquote>

Verification