Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="mlund" data-source="post: 6099428" data-attributes="member: 50304">Agreed. It's ultimately an internally inconsistent argument built out of a ton of hand-me-down rationalizations. It seems like if you're looking for an excuse to kill the Warlord off, you turn a blind eye to the inconsistencies of having a Monk, Barbarian, Paladin, and Ranger sitting right there because, hey &quot;Everything 4E = BadWrongFun.&quot; All it takes is denigrating the Warlord's role and play-style as less important or distinct than the others, relying on appeals to personal taste and opinion, not any sort of compelling logical construct.I could see Awesome Fighter As Warlord back before they sunk the whole idea of Sub-classes and gave us ridiculously background-drive stuff like the Monk and the Barbarian as stand-alone classes.The &quot;Battle Leader Fighting Style&quot; is exactly what I pointed it out to be: a poison-pill to kill the Warlord and take a diluted, narrow slice of his stuff so as to say &quot;there, I fixed it,&quot; so people will stop asking for the real class while h4ters get to dance on the Warlord's grave.It really comes across as just another obfuscation thrown up as WotC back-peddles again and again into a position that looks remarkably like &quot;nothing in 4E can be allowed to be in Next.&quot;Wait, what? Who said the Fighter's shtick was &quot;awesome at war,&quot; exactly? The Fighter is the best at physical personal combat (albeit he only beats the Monk and Barbarian on versatility and the Rogue in Endurance). When it comes to the bigger aspects of war (recon, logistics, strategy, group tactics, siege, ordnance, morale, etc.) you have a slew of better-suited character classes already. - Marty Lund</blockquote>

[QUOTE="mlund, post: 6099428, member: 50304"] Agreed. It's ultimately an internally inconsistent argument built out of a ton of hand-me-down rationalizations. It seems like if you're looking for an excuse to kill the Warlord off, you turn a blind eye to the inconsistencies of having a Monk, Barbarian, Paladin, and Ranger sitting right there because, hey "Everything 4E = BadWrongFun." All it takes is denigrating the Warlord's role and play-style as less important or distinct than the others, relying on appeals to personal taste and opinion, not any sort of compelling logical construct. I could see Awesome Fighter As Warlord back before they sunk the whole idea of Sub-classes and gave us ridiculously background-drive stuff like the Monk and the Barbarian as stand-alone classes. The "Battle Leader Fighting Style" is exactly what I pointed it out to be: a poison-pill to kill the Warlord and take a diluted, narrow slice of his stuff so as to say "there, I fixed it," so people will stop asking for the real class while h4ters get to dance on the Warlord's grave. It really comes across as just another obfuscation thrown up as WotC back-peddles again and again into a position that looks remarkably like "nothing in 4E can be allowed to be in Next." Wait, what? Who said the Fighter's shtick was "awesome at war," exactly? The Fighter is the best at [B]physical personal combat [/B](albeit he only beats the Monk and Barbarian on versatility and the Rogue in Endurance). When it comes to the bigger aspects of war (recon, logistics, strategy, group tactics, siege, ordnance, morale, etc.) you have a slew of better-suited character classes already. - Marty Lund [/QUOTE]

Verification