Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Guest 6801328" data-source="post: 7377918">There could be a compromise, if more people who step back and ask what playstyle they want in the game, and discuss how to support that, rather than have pre-determined, immutable conclusions.&nbsp; (It's one reason I find it hard it fully believe that it's really about &quot;playstyle.&quot;)I'd just as soon dismiss this whole Warlord idea, but I've tried really hard to both understand the appeal and to find mechanics/fluff that address the goals.&nbsp; There are some participants, though, who won't budge on any of their demands: a class/subclass that delivers a similar playstyle isn't enough; it has to be the same Warlord, with all the same abilities, that they recall from previous editions.&nbsp; I think I've seen solutions to almost every single desire/expectation that I'd be ok with, except for this non-magical healing thing. And I've seen the same from other posters as well.&nbsp; It really is the sticking point. Ok, I suppose that plus at-will action granting.&nbsp; I would have thought that Warlord proponents would be willing to temper those two demands, so that &quot;action granting&quot; has some limitations, and &quot;healing&quot; is a composite of damage prevention, temp HP, and maybe short rest bonuses, if by agreeing to that they could have an &quot;Int-based support/tactical martial fighter.&quot;But, no, that's not good enough.&nbsp; It has to have everything.As long as some people think of listening and compromise as &quot;backing down&quot;, this discussion will...well, just look at well that's turned out in Washington D.C.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Guest 6801328, post: 7377918"] There could be a compromise, if more people who step back and ask what playstyle they want in the game, and discuss how to support that, rather than have pre-determined, immutable conclusions. (It's one reason I find it hard it fully believe that it's really about "playstyle.") I'd just as soon dismiss this whole Warlord idea, but I've tried really hard to both understand the appeal and to find mechanics/fluff that address the goals. There are some participants, though, who won't budge on [I]any[/I] of their demands: a class/subclass that delivers a similar playstyle isn't enough; it has to be the same Warlord, with all the same abilities, that they recall from previous editions. I think I've seen solutions to almost every single desire/expectation that I'd be ok with, except for this non-magical healing thing. And I've seen the same from other posters as well. It really is the sticking point. Ok, I suppose that plus at-will action granting. I would have thought that Warlord proponents would be willing to temper those two demands, so that "action granting" has some limitations, and "healing" is a composite of damage prevention, temp HP, and maybe short rest bonuses, if by agreeing to that they could have an "Int-based support/tactical martial fighter." But, no, that's not good enough. It has to have [I]everything[/I]. As long as some people think of listening and compromise as "backing down", this discussion will...well, just look at well that's turned out in Washington D.C. [/QUOTE]

Verification