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

[Ruin Explorer]

Seems like that's the "only" answer though if you've decided that's the only answer... I envision the Warlord to be somewhat like a spotter while you're lifting... "DO IT MAN! DON'T BE A BITCH! LIFT IT ONE MORE TIME!"

Scribble, dude, this is precisely my point. In real life almost anyone can do this. Anyone can be a spotter. No training is required, only experience. Which is why it requires extra suspension of disbelief and realization that this is essentially a "metagame" or "cinematic" deal.

As for "the older games", uh, you realize those were generally the first things houseruled out, right? They didn't make sense and people didn't like them and they took a lot of flack for it. They're not generally "well-loved features".

 

[Scribble]

Sure, but if I have these reserves in me, why can't I call them up without some jerkbag screaming at me? If I have the time to make an extra attack or move an extra 5 feet, why can't I just do it, instead of having some guy tell me to do it?

For the same reason I sometimes can't get that last rep out unless there's some jerkbag yelling at me to push push push and don't be a

Is my heroic character that lazy?

It's not so much laziness, as being motivated to push harder.

But perhaps this is more of a "magic flavor" issue than anything else. I can imagine breaking the rules of physics, time, and space in order to enable me to move around or swing my sword again. I can't really imagine suddenly realizing I could run ten feet just because some dude tells me to, when I couldn't do it before.

Really? You've never done anything and had someone motivate you to push harder then you thought you could?

 

[Scribble]

Scribble, dude, this is precisely my point. In real life almost anyone can do this. Anyone can be a spotter. No training is required, only experience. Which is why it requires extra suspension of disbelief and realization that this is essentially a "metagame" or "cinematic" deal.

Yes... which is what I talked about in the rest of my post dude.

Some people are trained to do it better. Some people spend their lives working to push people to do it better. A spotter vrs a Coach or a Personal Trainer.

As for "the older games", uh, you realize those were generally the first things houseruled out, right? They didn't make sense and people didn't like them and they took a lot of flack for it. They're not generally "well-loved features".

Yeah, but you mentioned it as being something 4e did differently then other versions. Doesn't matter if you or anyone house ruled it out, the game had the concept already.

 

[The Little Raven]

I don't think you're telling him anything he doesn't know, Mourn. You're either missing his point or intentionally ignoring it.

He's saying "I don't like class systems, and I hate 4e because it's a class system that makes classes distinct."

It's not even like a Fighter or Rogue, because their abilties are affect themselves, and thus it's easy to believe that they're specific trained or learned abilities.

So, the rogue or fighter can learn things others can't, and thus have abilities that make them distinct, but Warlords can't? So, everyone can learn tactics on the level of the Warlord, so he shouldn't exist, but only Rogues should be able to learn to acrobatically move safely (Tumble) or only Fighters should be able to move people with their shields (Tide of Iron)?

That's a horribly inconsistent argument that seems centered around the starting point that the "Warlord = Bad," and thus all arguments must bend to support that point.

I dunno if you've played 4E yet, or see your players exposed to it,

I'm a 4th-level Eladrin Wizard named Kelleshan Valis, Herald of the Storm, one of the heroes of Winterhaven. I've been playing the game since Shadowfell came out.

"Er why can he make me attack again? Why I can't I just attack again anyway?". The only answer, of course is "Shut up, it's a game, it doesn't have to make sense!".

Because he's studied tactics on a level that you did not, and he can see opportunities in combat that you would never recognize, and by bringing them to your attention, you benefit from his knowledge and experience.

Easy.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Because he's studied tactics on a level that you did not, and he can see opportunities in combat that you would never recognize, and by bringing them to your attention, you benefit from his knowledge and experience.

Easy.

Easy for you doesn't mean easy for everyone, Mourn, and some people don't find that explanation persuasive. Nor does it account for the Warlord's ability to cause people to heal themselves, etc.

Personally, I think it's easier and less painful to simply accept that D&D is a game, rather than to insist that players accept ideas that don't make sense on a visceral level. I think the problem here is you are literally unable to accept that some people find the Warlord class less believable than the other classes, right?

 

[TheWyrd]

To me, the big question in 4E seems to be 'What DOES my character do in combat?'.. note that this is different from 'What CAN my character do in combat?' My fighter could hypothetically yell to his allies and urge them on.. but the fact that I took fighter as a class means that my fighter has choosen to defend his allies and act as a shield to protect them. Tactic: Hold the Line vs. Tactic: Strategist

If anything, my only complaint here is that there isn't a clear mechanic for 'reclassing' to go from the young defender to the grizzled veteran.


Going back to the the original question, obviously I wouldn't regard 4E as D&D if it hadn't been put out by WotC (or equivalent IP holder). That said, I'd give it just as much of a chance as I did for True20's interesting expansion on Unearthed Arcana/The Psychic's Handbook or Marvel's weird stone based system. Truthfully, I'd be MORE inclined to look at it if say Green Ronin had put it out than if WotC had put it out. I'd probably just ignore it if Mongoose had put it out.. nothing against them just the Mongoose books I have haven't 'worked' for me.

 

[Scribble]

Easy for you doesn't mean easy for everyone, Mourn, and some people don't find that explanation persuasive. Nor does it account for the Warlord's ability to cause people to heal themselves, etc.

Personally, I think it's easier and less painful to simply accept that D&D is a game, rather than to insist that players accept ideas that don't make sense on a visceral level. I think the problem here is you are literally unable to accept that some people find the Warlord class less believable than the other classes, right?

I think what mourn, and others (like myself) find problematic is when people make statements like the "only" explanation for the warlord is from a metegame point of view. Which is untrue.

Sure, you're entitled to your opinion about any class you want. But when you start arguing that because your opinion of a class/concept is bad, then it is or should be bad for everyone... that's an issue.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I think what mourn, and others (like myself) find problematic is when people make statements like the "only" explanation for the warlord is from a metegame point of view. Which is untrue.

Sure, you're entitled to your opinion about any class you want. But when you start arguing that because your opinion of a class/concept is bad, then it is or should be bad for everyone... that's an issue.

I don't think I said anything about bad, so don't bring that up please, as if I did.

To be honest, too, I still don't see any way to view the Warlord except as a metagame class. It's not remotely believeable to me that these traits he possesses are something someone could be trained with and that everyone would always respond to. They're a martial class, but the way they work is utterly beyond the real, and directly into the realms of cinema. And then, even in cinema, virtually all the people who the things Warlords do, are not "warleaders", but merely experienced combatants.

Don't get me wrong, I like Warlords, but I think that blithely denying that they're harder for some (many) people to believe without thinking about metagame elements is merely obfuscation, and worse, only HURTS the chances of people coming to like the Warlord class.

 

[Scribble]

I don't think I said anything about bad, so don't bring that up please, as if I did.

The who conversation has been about the warlord being not right, or wrong or bad. Not good? Not right?

To be honest, too, I still don't see any way to view the Warlord except as a metagame class. It's not remotely believeable to me that these traits he possesses are something someone could be trained with and that everyone would always respond to.

Can't please everyone. Some people think psionics are silly. Others like them. Some people think AC as something other then DR is silly. Others don't.

They're a martial class, but the way they work is utterly beyond the real, and directly into the realms of cinema. And then, even in cinema, virtually all the people who the things Warlords do, are not "warleaders", but merely experienced combatants.

In your opinion. just because you can't translate the game into something doesn't mean it is "utterly beyond the real."

Don't get me wrong, I like Warlords, but I think that blithely denying that they're harder for some (many) people to believe without thinking about metagame elements is merely obfuscation, and worse, only HURTS the chances of people coming to like the Warlord class.

In my opinion they make as much sense as any of the other classes, and make me think of metagame ideas as much as any other class... So I don't agree.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The who conversation has been about the warlord being not right, or wrong or bad. Not good? Not right?

I dunno? My posts haven't. Don't refer to other people's posts when quoting me. We've been over this. I am not everyone who disagrees with you.

In my opinion they make as much sense as any of the other classes, and make me think of metagame ideas as much as any other class... So I don't agree.

Yeah, and I think that's a problem, because I think it's an extreme minority opinion, shared pretty much by you and Mourn.