Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Aldarc" data-source="post: 7382258" data-attributes="member: 5142">This seems more like another drive-by shitpost in a warlord thread than any real meaningful criticism, which becomes clear when one looks more closely at the underlying debate at hand. Part of the issue stems from the nature of 5e saves rather than a disagreement of what the Warlord is: i.e., one primary save, one secondary save. In a system like 3e, the Warlord would likely have had strong Fortitude and Will saves. (And the 3e Marshal class did.) In 4e, the Warlord did receive a +1 Fortitude and +1 Will saves. But how would you express that in 5e? Strength and Wisdom or Constitution and Intelligence/Charisma? You say that this reflects the &quot;'People can't even agree on what the Warlord is' debate,&quot; but you would likely have similar issue with a number of classes in 5e if these verdicts on their saves did not come down from the Powers That Be. For example, do you honestly think that people would have picked Strength and Wisdom for the Monk without debate? I don't. Or what about the Paladin? Could it not also have been Constitution and Charisma instead of Wisdom and Charisma? Or how about the Bard? Why is not Wisdom and Charisma instead of Dexterity and Charisma? So I don't think that this is empty talk about &quot;no one agrees on the Warlord&quot; - as I do think that a lot of the fundamental agreement is there - but, rather, how would one best express the Warlord in 5e, wherein one doesn't get both autoaccess to both Constitution (ex-Fortitude) and Wisdom (ex-Will) saves? So what the results reflect, IMHO, are two camps of thought depending on how one leans on translating the strong Fort+Will saves of 3e-4e to 5e: 1) Strong Fort + Secondary Mental: Constitution + Intelligence/Charisma 2) Strong Will + Secondary Martial: Wisdom + Strength Honestly, I think either Wisdom/Strength or Constitution/Intelligence would work.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Aldarc, post: 7382258, member: 5142"] This seems more like another drive-by shitpost in a warlord thread than any real meaningful criticism, which becomes clear when one looks more closely at the underlying debate at hand. Part of the issue stems from the nature of 5e saves rather than a disagreement of what the Warlord is: i.e., one primary save, one secondary save. In a system like 3e, the Warlord would likely have had strong Fortitude and Will saves. (And the 3e Marshal class did.) In 4e, the Warlord did receive a +1 Fortitude and +1 Will saves. But how would you express that in 5e? Strength and Wisdom or Constitution and Intelligence/Charisma? You say that this reflects the "'People can't even agree on what the Warlord is' debate," but you would likely have similar issue with a number of classes in 5e if these verdicts on their saves did not come down from the Powers That Be. For example, do you honestly think that people would have picked Strength and Wisdom for the Monk without debate? I don't. Or what about the Paladin? Could it not also have been Constitution and Charisma instead of Wisdom and Charisma? Or how about the Bard? Why is not Wisdom and Charisma instead of Dexterity and Charisma? So I don't think that this is empty talk about "no one agrees on the Warlord" - as I do think that a lot of the fundamental agreement is there - but, rather, how would one best express the Warlord in 5e, wherein one doesn't get both autoaccess to both Constitution (ex-Fortitude) and Wisdom (ex-Will) saves? So what the results reflect, IMHO, are two camps of thought depending on how one leans on translating the strong Fort+Will saves of 3e-4e to 5e: 1) Strong Fort + Secondary Mental: Constitution + Intelligence/Charisma 2) Strong Will + Secondary Martial: Wisdom + Strength Honestly, I think either Wisdom/Strength or Constitution/Intelligence would work. [/QUOTE]

Verification