Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Zustiur" data-source="post: 6018383" data-attributes="member: 1544">I hadn't picked up on that, and I have to admit, I was thinking in terms of 4E's assumptions about ability scores.This is where our tastes differ. I think of a warlord as a 'leader of men'. No matter how much Int you have, it takes Cha to get people to follow you. Taking an extreme: 20 Int with 3 Cha. He'll make a truly brilliant tactician, but no-one is going to listen to him. Remember; Charisma doesn't mean 'nice person' or 'friendly' or even 'generally liked'. To quote 3.5: "Charisma measures a character's force of personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and physical attractiveness." So while charismatic people are often well liked, they aren't always. Your stereotypical foul-mouthed, hard-ass Sergeant needs high charisma to ensure that his Corporals and Privates follow his orders. Respect for military rank and/or bullying will only get you so far, especially when the other people concerned (adventurers) aren't from a military background. The same applies to other figures of authority - a charismatic policeman will have a much easier time getting the attention and cooperation of civilians than an uncharismatic policeman will; even if the charismatic one is the less intelligent of the pair.As far as strength is concerned; I look at the warlord as being on par with the cleric or rogue. Str isn't a primary for either really (4E STR clerics not-withstanding). Clerics have always gone for wisdom, while rogues favour dex. Yet both have often spent time fighting along-side the fighter in the front line. If my understanding of bounded accuracy is correct; Rogues and Clerics will have a slow 'BAB' progression as well as lower strength, yet still contribute as melee combatants. If that is the case, then I see no reason why the warlord cannot be similar, perhaps with a fighter's BAB, but lower Str.I've got you covered.</blockquote>

Verification