Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7184834" data-attributes="member: 4937">Technically, it's been a group of classes that had the metagame role 'Leader'.&nbsp;&nbsp; And that was in 4e.&nbsp; What I think you mean is the Warlord which was the role Leader with the power-source or flavor 'Martial'.And I think that worked OK for 4e given the assumptions of 4e about the sort of game that would be played at the table, but even Warlord is not the same as 'The Leader'.&nbsp; Indeed, you could have a Warlord in a party and the Warlord not be 'The Leader'.&nbsp; The Warlord could instead be 'The Smart Guy' or 'The Heart' and the role of 'The Leader' could be being filled by some other member of the team.Fundamentally, I feel that 'The Warlord' is an archetype or subset of abilities that Fighters should be able to invest in.&nbsp; In other words, I think that as part of what makes Fighters balanced with spell-casting classes, they have to be much more broad than &quot;hits things with a stick...hard&quot;.&nbsp; D&amp;D has unfortunately got itself trapped in the idea that fighters are inherently big dumb brutes, and that's the limit of the archetype 'the fighter' covers.&nbsp; This is at odds with how Fighter worked in earlier versions of D&amp;D, where you could play The Captain as well as The Muscle with the same class, and I think it is a big factor in the 3e and later era problem of spellcasters being better than noncasters.&nbsp;&nbsp; That is, a Wizard isn't limited to just hitting things with a fireball shaped stick.That I don't disagree with.The fact that leadership got associated with a terribly designed feat that was mainly trying to be backwards compatible with the concepts in 1e of achieving name level and getting followers is a big part of why we have terrible support for the concept of leadership.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 7184834, member: 4937"] Technically, it's been a group of classes that had the metagame role 'Leader'. And that was in 4e. What I think you mean is the Warlord which was the role Leader with the power-source or flavor 'Martial'. And I think that worked OK for 4e given the assumptions of 4e about the sort of game that would be played at the table, but even Warlord is not the same as 'The Leader'. Indeed, you could have a Warlord in a party and the Warlord not be 'The Leader'. The Warlord could instead be 'The Smart Guy' or 'The Heart' and the role of 'The Leader' could be being filled by some other member of the team. Fundamentally, I feel that 'The Warlord' is an archetype or subset of abilities that Fighters should be able to invest in. In other words, I think that as part of what makes Fighters balanced with spell-casting classes, they have to be much more broad than "hits things with a stick...hard". D&D has unfortunately got itself trapped in the idea that fighters are inherently big dumb brutes, and that's the limit of the archetype 'the fighter' covers. This is at odds with how Fighter worked in earlier versions of D&D, where you could play The Captain as well as The Muscle with the same class, and I think it is a big factor in the 3e and later era problem of spellcasters being better than noncasters. That is, a Wizard isn't limited to just hitting things with a fireball shaped stick. That I don't disagree with. The fact that leadership got associated with a terribly designed feat that was mainly trying to be backwards compatible with the concepts in 1e of achieving name level and getting followers is a big part of why we have terrible support for the concept of leadership. [/QUOTE]

Verification