Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="rounser" data-source="post: 4328333" data-attributes="member: 1106">Because the warlord's own powers imply he or she is being listened to, and you need to do so to get the benefit of those powers.&nbsp; If your Conan clone considers the &quot;warlord&quot; a twit, and ignores him, then one of the PCs in the party suddenly becomes weakened in terms of powers.&nbsp; And as every happy little 4E camper knows, everyone not being equal is unfun, and obviously playing the game wrong.&nbsp; Far better to assume (correctly IMO) that the game has got it wrong by putting this class in there in the first place.Hair splitting.&nbsp; &quot;Rogue&quot; was subbed in for &quot;thief&quot;, I'd assume for hand-wringing reasons of political correctness (maybe) and class scope (probably definitely).&nbsp; The guy who picks the locks is the burglar or the thief or the lockpick, and simply because the old thief has been expanded to include crusty jugglers, confidence tricksters and assassins, rakes, jesters, acrobats, swashbuckers and Pelor knows what else...a more generic term was needed.&nbsp; There are many rogues who would be better described by the more specific &quot;burglar&quot;.&quot;Warlord&quot; has no such excuse, and is not a generic name.&nbsp; More revealingly, there's nothing much you can substitute in there for it without implying that the PCs are an army, or that they're soldiers taking orders.&nbsp; Unlike &quot;burglar&quot;.Because it's written in the text, and I don't want to fix the stupid powers based on the concept that Mr Warlord Knows Best that WOTC shouldn't have even included in the game in the first place?I lack the desire to put effort into making up for the inadequacies and unwise oversights included in this game, because it rubs me the wrong way too much, and requires too much effort to fix.&nbsp; It's conceptually broken, even if the crunch isn't.And a &quot;warlord&quot; without orders makes even less sense than it already does.&nbsp; &quot;Life coach&quot; is not a D&amp;D character class either.&nbsp; You can doo eeet!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="rounser, post: 4328333, member: 1106"] Because the warlord's own powers imply he or she is being listened to, and you need to do so to get the benefit of those powers. If your Conan clone considers the "warlord" a twit, and ignores him, then one of the PCs in the party suddenly becomes weakened in terms of powers. And as every happy little 4E camper knows, everyone not being equal is unfun, and obviously playing the game wrong. Far better to assume (correctly IMO) that the game has got it wrong by putting this class in there in the first place. Hair splitting. "Rogue" was subbed in for "thief", I'd assume for hand-wringing reasons of political correctness (maybe) and class scope (probably definitely). The guy who picks the locks is the burglar or the thief or the lockpick, and simply because the old thief has been expanded to include crusty jugglers, confidence tricksters and assassins, rakes, jesters, acrobats, swashbuckers and Pelor knows what else...a more generic term was needed. There are many rogues who would be better described by the more specific "burglar". "Warlord" has no such excuse, and is not a generic name. More revealingly, there's nothing much you can substitute in there for it without implying that the PCs are an army, or that they're soldiers taking orders. Unlike "burglar". Because it's written in the text, and I don't want to fix the stupid powers based on the concept that Mr Warlord Knows Best that WOTC shouldn't have even included in the game in the first place? I lack the desire to put effort into making up for the inadequacies and unwise oversights included in this game, because it rubs me the wrong way too much, and requires too much effort to fix. It's conceptually broken, even if the crunch isn't. And a "warlord" without orders makes even less sense than it already does. "Life coach" is not a D&D character class either. You can doo eeet! [/QUOTE]

Verification