Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Mike Mearls Happy Fun Hour: The Warlord
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 7373306" data-attributes="member: 6795602"><p>It wasn't bad faith. Now please justify how you broke what I actually said which was this: "Then rogues shouldn't exist. They aren't strong enough to stand on their own. Every d&d rogue is just a person that can fight decently well and is good at skills. A fighter subclass would have been sufficient. If rogues exist as their own class in the design space then so should warlords. If barbarians exists as their own class in the design space then so should warlords."</p><p></p><p>into 2 single statements:</p><p>"Then rogues shouldn't exist. They aren't strong enough to stand on their own. "</p><p>"Every d&d rogue is just a person that can fight decently well and is good at skills. "</p><p></p><p>Care to explain how your going to accuse someone of bad faith when you willfully cut their words so short that it would appear to anyone reading your quote that one of my primary points was that a rogue shouldn't exist when it's quite the opposite. I'm arguing that because the rogue exists then the warlord should too.</p><p></p><p>Actually don't. Just don't imply bad faith again or this conversation is over. As soon as bad faith starts getting mentioned again and again the conversation usually might as well be over anyways.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>But that is concept. Character concepts containing being good at some skillsets and being able to fight are the only concepts that map to the rogue. A general statement like that isn't getting into the mechanics no matter how much you try to claim it is. Speaking of, you've done that multiple times now. You try to act as if something is mechanics when it's not. Please stop doing that.</p><p></p><p>Ultimately the point is that if desired we could make a rogue subclass for fighter and everyone of those concepts would map to it too.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It's not just you that's disqualified them. It's you and everyone else that's against a warlord class/subclass. All leadership positions are disqualified as examples. Tried it before. Witnessed it before. Not worth doing again.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="FrogReaver, post: 7373306, member: 6795602"] It wasn't bad faith. Now please justify how you broke what I actually said which was this: "Then rogues shouldn't exist. They aren't strong enough to stand on their own. Every d&d rogue is just a person that can fight decently well and is good at skills. A fighter subclass would have been sufficient. If rogues exist as their own class in the design space then so should warlords. If barbarians exists as their own class in the design space then so should warlords." into 2 single statements: "Then rogues shouldn't exist. They aren't strong enough to stand on their own. " "Every d&d rogue is just a person that can fight decently well and is good at skills. " Care to explain how your going to accuse someone of bad faith when you willfully cut their words so short that it would appear to anyone reading your quote that one of my primary points was that a rogue shouldn't exist when it's quite the opposite. I'm arguing that because the rogue exists then the warlord should too. Actually don't. Just don't imply bad faith again or this conversation is over. As soon as bad faith starts getting mentioned again and again the conversation usually might as well be over anyways. But that is concept. Character concepts containing being good at some skillsets and being able to fight are the only concepts that map to the rogue. A general statement like that isn't getting into the mechanics no matter how much you try to claim it is. Speaking of, you've done that multiple times now. You try to act as if something is mechanics when it's not. Please stop doing that. Ultimately the point is that if desired we could make a rogue subclass for fighter and everyone of those concepts would map to it too. It's not just you that's disqualified them. It's you and everyone else that's against a warlord class/subclass. All leadership positions are disqualified as examples. Tried it before. Witnessed it before. Not worth doing again. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Mike Mearls Happy Fun Hour: The Warlord
Top
