Honestly, if WoTC didn't create it would 4e be D&D?

A cleric never implied hierarchy? Really? With all the world's religions, you get no sense of hierarchy with a cleric?
Yes. Really. I've never felt that the cleric had more status than any other class in the party. They might respect him for his wisdom and devotion, but no more than they might respect the mage for his smarts and spells. The cleric is no more likely than any other class to be listened to if he starts shouting orders. Until now.
When does a warlord actually order anyone around?
It's implied in your PHB whenever he starts doling out tactical advice, and in the name of at least one power. Now you're just grasping at straws.

Sorry guys, it's been fun, and you're clearly enthusiastic to defend to the hilt come the Nine Hells or the Elemental Plane of Water (not that it exists any more as of 4E), but I'm going to bed.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

rounser said:
True. Personally, I blame it on WOTC for saddling the game with such a bad design.

Perhaps, if we were playing "Battlefields & Warmachines". Pity about the "totally inappropriate for an adventuring party" thing, then, really.

So, person who breaks into houses and steals people's belongings fits with the group that contains a paladin and a priest of Heironeous, but, person who exercises tactical acumen doesn't.

Right.
 

rounser said:
True. Personally, I blame it on WOTC for saddling the game with such a bad design.

Nah, I blame it on the guy using some player who wants to be antagonistic as a way to support his "I hate warlords" point, who even admits his example is bunk. Namely, you.

Perhaps, if we were playing "Battlefields & Warmachines". Pity about the "totally inappropriate for an adventuring party" thing, then, really.

So, you're trying to say that a guy that leads people in battle is less generic than guy that specifically breaks into buildings in order to commit crimes? Or is inappropriate to a party in a game that is primarily centered around combat?

You're really reaching here, rounser, especially in light of the fact that you ignore salient points that weaken your already weak claims.
 

Hussar said:
So, person who breaks into houses and steals people's belongings fits with the group that contains a paladin and a priest of Heironeous, but, person who exercises tactical acumen doesn't.

Right.

What I like is that the troubadour who goes into a collapsing ruin to sing alongside Krunk the Smashinator is logical party material, but a combat-oriented leader-type isn't.
 

I have to agree, the Warlord's power does imply at least tactical leadership, and may not be appropriate for every group - or every player.

Leading in battle but not leading anywhere else seems a bit odd, and may lead to problems if there's a clash of strategic and tactical goals.
 

rounser said:
They might respect him for his wisdom and devotion, but no more than they might respect the mage for his smarts and spells.
And they respect the warlord for his tactical insight and intelligence on the battlefield. Easy.

rounser said:
It's implied in your PHB whenever he starts doling out tactical advice, and in the name of at least one power. Now you're just grasping at straws.
One whole power? Who's grasping?

rounser said:
Sorry guys, it's been fun, and you're clearly enthusiastic to defend to the hilt come the Nine Hells or the Elemental Plane of Water (not that it exists any more as of 4E), but I'm going to bed.
You sure like to play the man, not the ball eh?
 

Interestingly enough, I've played bards that were pretty much Warlords for quite some time - tactically minded bards that studied military history and the like. Took Oratory for Bardic Music and never bothered with an instrument. Heck, I did something similar to that in 2e as well.

Maybe that's why I don't mind warlords. That's basically how I've played bards for a long time.
 




Remove ads

Top