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

[AllisterH]

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

*Shrug*

My cousin is a professional trainer. I always got the impression that while "everyone" can do it, only a "few" are actually good at it.

You can imagine why I didn't have a problem with the warlord.

 

[Scribble]

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.

So then... Explain to me exactly what you're saying? The warlord is a good class?

I'm using it along the lines of: You are stating that the warlord for whatever reason has problems. (If it doesn't have issues what are you arguing?)

If something has problems (whatever problems they are) then it's faulty, it isn't right, or more simply put: It's bad.

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

And apparently AllisterH.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

So then... Explain to me exactly what you're saying? The warlord is a good class?

Either I could explain it, or you could actually read my posts again and look at the words I actually use. Good grief.

Okay, this once:

Warlord is a very good class. It is my favourite class in 4th Edition. If I was a player, I would play a Warlord. Are we clear so far? Good. I really like that they added a class that heals and supports that isn't a Cleric, I think they handled it very well, considering how hard it is to do, and I like the name. I think it works very well with the re-envisioning of HP (or "clarifying" or whatever euphemism).

I think that if you think about the Warlord a bit too hard, you can end up asking questions that are harder to answer than they are for other classes, and situations involving multiple Warlords can seem a lot sillier than for other classes (particularly more than one Warlord ordering around the same guy).

I mean, it's a 10/10 class for me, it really is. I just think it's harder than the other classes to explain rationally and thus requires a slightly greater suspension of disbelief. If that's a horrible criticism for you, well, sorry dude. Personally it's just a minor issue that doesn't detract from the awesome relief of not having to either bring a Cleric or so many wands of CLW that could wire them together and make a faux-Cleric out of them.

Let me be ultra-clear: I ABSOLUTELY DO NOT AGREE that imperfection is the same as "faulty" or "bad". That's like saying because I have a mosquito bite on my right leg I'm a terrible person. It's not logical or sane. It's wild overextension.

 

[Scribble]

Either I could explain it, or you could actually read my posts again and look at the words I actually use. Good grief.

Or you could stop trying to attack me, the poster, and imply I'm trying to put words in your mouth becayuse you don't like my dissagreement?

Argue the point.

Okay, this once:

I think that if you think about the Warlord a bit too hard, you can end up asking questions that are harder to answer than they are for other classes, and situations involving multiple Warlords can seem a lot sillier than for other classes (particularly more than one Warlord ordering around the same guy).

So you're saying the warlord has a problem. It's possible to like something but recognise it has a problem.

I mean, it's a 10/10 class for me, it really is. I just think it's harder than the other classes to explain rationally and thus requires a slightly greater suspension of disbelief. If that's a horrible criticism for you, well, sorry dude.

Again, dude, it's possible to like something but recognize it has a problem.

Personally it's just a minor issue that doesn't detract from the awesome relief of not having to either bring a Cleric or so many wands of CLW that could wire them together and make a faux-Cleric out of them.

Ok, but you're still saying the warlord has a problem. Whether or not you like it.

Let me be ultra-clear: I ABSOLUTELY DO NOT AGREE that imperfection is the same as "faulty" or "bad". That's like saying because I have a mosquito bite on my right leg I'm a terrible person. It's not logical or sane. It's wild overextension.

It's not like that at all.

Ok, you don't like the term bad being used in place of "it has problems?"

The point is still valid. You made the statement that the Warlord has problems. When something is problematic, I say bad. Maybe you don't use that word? Great. The point is still the same.

Or are you just trying to attack ME?

 

[The Little Raven]

I think that if you think about the Warlord a bit too hard, you can end up asking questions that are harder to answer than they are for other classes, and situations involving multiple Warlords can seem a lot sillier than for other classes (particularly more than one Warlord ordering around the same guy).

And I've yet to see a "question" that is harder to answer for the Warlord than for any other class, as mentioned above.

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 just think it's harder than the other classes to explain rationally and thus requires a slightly greater suspension of disbelief.

So, it's harder to explain why the Warlord can point out a tactical opportunity to someone who wouldn't have otherwise noticed it (because that's what he has trained in doing), and thus gaining an extra move or attack or whatever, than it is to explain why only Fighters can move people around with shields (Tide of Iron), or can move their allies closer to them (Get Over Here)?

Nor does it account for the Warlord's ability to cause people to heal themselves, etc.

I think it works very well with the re-envisioning of HP (or "clarifying" or whatever euphemism).

This seems to be a contradiction. If they did well with the clarifying/re-envisioning of HP as non-physical damage, then what problem exists with a tactical combat leader inspiring his comrades to overcome fatigue, morale loss, or whatever non-physical ailment HP loss represents?

 

[ProfessorCirno]

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

I very specifically stated that WASN'T what I was saying. Stop insulting me. It's getting old, and it's getting old fast.

 

[The Little Raven]

I very specifically stated that WASN'T what I was saying. Stop insulting me. It's getting old, and it's getting old fast.

So, you weren't the one that said "EVERY CLASS HAS ONE UND PRECISELY VON SET OF POWERS, THEY CAN NEVER SHARE, IRREGRADLESS OF WHAT SESAME STREET TOLD YOU!" as a complaint?

 

[ProfessorCirno]

So, you weren't the one that said "EVERY CLASS HAS ONE UND PRECISELY VON SET OF POWERS, THEY CAN NEVER SHARE, IRREGRADLESS OF WHAT SESAME STREET TOLD YOU!" as a complaint?

Again, you're purposefully misconstruing my argument. Stop.

My argument is that classes have irrationally placed powers that could easily go to other classes, but instead are stuck in place "because it's a game."

 

[rounser]

Can't please everyone.

They could have, simply by not adding stuff like this to the core game. But they didn't, for reasons that don't seem clear.

 

[Hussar]

Again, you're purposefully misconstruing my argument. Stop.

My argument is that classes have irrationally placed powers that could easily go to other classes, but instead are stuck in place "because it's a game."

I'm unsure what the problem is here thought Professor. D&D, because it's a class system, has ALWAYS had that. Why can only thieves pick locks, for example? It's a trainable ability, yet, for the majority of D&D's history, only thieves could pick locks.

3e did change that and make open locks a skill. But, again, only rogue's can find DC20+ traps. No matter how many ranks I have in search, unless I'm a 1st level rogue (or a few other rogue type classes) I can NEVER find a DC 21 trap. Why not? I could have 20 ranks in search, yet despite the fact that I could not possibly fail the roll, I can never find that DC 21 trap.

Why not? Because of class protection. We needed to give the rogue something to do, some reason to be a class in the game, so we gave them Trap Finding. There's no particular reason a Ranger or a Bard couldn't do it, but, in order to protect the rogue's schtick, they can't.

Now, 4e has certainly taken this a step further. I don't disagree with that. You have very strong class protection. For EXACTLY the same reason you had it in all other editions - to protect that class' schtick.

If you don't want classes to have a schtick, then why have classes at all? Why not go to a point based system and allow people to create their own classes? The entire purpose of a class based system is to have distinct classes or roles. D&D up to 3e had extremely strong class protection. 3e eroded that somewhat, and ended up making a lot of classes mostly irrelavent. Why bother having a rogue in the party if you have someone take 1 level of rogue then progress as a ranger? Why bother having a fighter in the party if you have pretty much any other combat oriented class?

The problem with 3e is that by not protecting the class schtick's, by bleeding over powers between the classes, you create a very distinct heirarchy of classes. If I can take Class X and steal Class Y's schtick while keeping Class X, then there is no reason to have Class Y.