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

[Fifth Element]

For some. Others may find it rather troublesome, as players. Just because something fits one group doesn't mean it fits another group.

I've always found it troublesome that at high levels wizards outstripped everyone else. We worked around it, we didn't ban wizards. We're not hong here.

 

[blargney the second]

The bard never ordered anyone about.

Bard with UMD and a wand of Snake's Swiftness: "Hit him again! Harder!"

Warlord with Commander's Strike: "Hit him again! Harder!"
-blarg

 

[SweeneyTodd]

If you'd rather use flavor that indicates the Warlord is setting up opportunities that the Fighter can take advantage of, that works as well (or better) than the "I shout, you attack" way of describing it.

I guess if you had a group where one guy was like "Hey, I set this guy up for you to get your flanking bonus, if you want" and the other guy is all "NUH UH you aren't the boss of me" (not in character, I mean the actual player), then that won't work either, but at that point you have bigger problems.

But if you want to have, say, two people who don't see eye to eye and yet can still fight together effectively, there's no reason that's incompatible with the Warlord class. I figure any fighter worth his salt is swinging his sword around a lot, only one of those attacks (on his turn) actually hits, thanks to the fact that the warlord knows how to work with him (represented by Commander's Strike) he gets another one that gets a chance to hit. It's not like we're picturing these characters standing around waiting for 6 seconds to pass so they can swing again.

 

[Fenes]

So, as a group, figure it out. It's no different from any previous edition.

Exactly. Like, not using something - houseruling by banning something has been a valid way to roleplay for decades. Why harp on people just because they don't like something?

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Meh, my only problem with warlord is that I feel most if not all the powers could've just as easily been in any other class. To put it another way, my issue with warlord isn't the warlord itself, it's with the powers system, specifically "EVERY CLASS HAS ONE UND PRECISELY VON SET OF POWERS, THEY CAN NEVER SHARE, IRREGRADLESS OF WHAT SESAME STREET TOLD YOU!"

Also, there are no Dragonborn in my setting. They were massacred by the kobolds in a war of purity. Tieflings are of the 2e variety.

 

[The Little Raven]

Meh, my only problem with warlord is that I feel most if not all the powers could've just as easily been in any other class. To put it another way, my issue with warlord isn't the warlord itself, it's with the powers system, specifically "EVERY CLASS HAS ONE UND PRECISELY VON SET OF POWERS, THEY CAN NEVER SHARE, IRREGRADLESS OF WHAT SESAME STREET TOLD YOU!"

So, your problem is that the class system in 4e actually reinforces the idea that classes are distinct, rather than just buckets of abilities for you to dip into?

 

[Hussar]

Exactly. Like, not using something - houseruling by banning something has been a valid way to roleplay for decades. Why harp on people just because they don't like something?

There's a bit of a disconnect here. I'm not harping on Rounser for not liking elements. That's perfectly fine. What raises my hackles is the idea that "I don't like it therefore it's badly designed", which is pretty much what Rounser is saying here.

The design is fine. Not liking it is fine. Trying to present your personal preferences as some sort of objective standard (this rule is a bad rule is pretty objective) is not.

 

[qstor]

I think the OP is partially right. Brand loyalty is what is getting 4e noticed and talked about. But, I don't think it is just the brand loyalty that is making people except it.

The current edition is evolved from the previous versions of the game. In each edition, they are streamlining rules by keeping what is working and removing what is getting in the way of how the designers see the player's and DM's experience. The key word here is evolved. The game designers are making decisions that they feel improve the game.

I might be trolling but I disagree 100% I still can't see how the changes improved D&D. It's a totally different system from 1e, 2e and 3e. It's not an improvement.

I think if WOTC didnt create it would NOT be D&D. As I've said before the Vancian magic system is part of the heart and soul of D&D without it, 4e is a poor shell of a game. It's a whole new game.

Mike

 

[Imp]

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..

Not that I am very much on the pompom side of this issue but have the cleric start getting stingy with the cure spells and you get yourself a hierarchy real quick. This is actually something that I've never liked about earlier D&D party dynamics, they directly imply that the exploits of the party are favored by a particular god (you can wheedle your way around this but it's usually quite contrived).

 

[ProfessorCirno]

So, your problem is that the class system in 4e actually reinforces the idea that classes are distinct, rather than just buckets of abilities for you to dip into?

In a way, it is. I think most classes and their powers don't have big problems, but I think it falls apart on martial classes, such as how warriors, despite being masters of the art of war, haven't grasped that their left hand can be used. Or how you have to be specially and specifically trained to shout loudly or tell people what to do. I dislike that choices have become limited.

Edit: To give what I think is a perfect example, rangers get an ability that allow other classes to reroll, the fluff saying "they benefit from your great wisdom" or something along those lines. There's nothing about that ability that has anything to do with rangers or any of the ranger stuff elsewhere in 4e. It's completely out of place, but only rangers can do it, and we're never told why.