It's the way some guy on the internet thought it would be funny to play one. You're taking overreaction to strange and wondrous new levels, here.
People are starting to take me seriously...4th edition is really going to ruin my reputation.

It's the way some guy on the internet thought it would be funny to play one. You're taking overreaction to strange and wondrous new levels, here.
There's a default way people to play things with antisocial stereotypes, and I think this thread has coined it. e.g. Half-orcs are often played as dumb, violent bullies. Coincidence? Nope. They're half stupid, violent monsters. 1E Assassins were sometimes played as threatening or outright murdering other PCs if they didn't get their way (via the good old assassination chart), which is why they were excluded from 2E. Same thing. The "warlord" is going to get played as a rude, obnoxious drill sergeant by many, many players...it's a no-brainer.You're taking overreaction to strange and wondrous new levels, here.
I suspect 4e is going to try harder to push the "hit points do not represent physical durability" concept that D&D has always claimed but been a bit half-assed about.Aloïsius said:I don't like the idea of people fallig one, two, three times per encounter, and being revived during the fight.
I realy want to have healing and such happening outside of combat. When your belly is open by a halleberd, you should need more than a standard action by a fight-busy guy to stand up from prone and "chaaarge! " anew.
And the more I read and think about it, the less I think warlords will exist IMC. Suspension of disbelief is somewhat important to me.
States like "demoralised" and "broken", maybe, meaning that sword strikes just hurt your feelings rather than actually cut you?Though I'm not quite sure how they'll make that work without getting incapacitated and revived several times in one fight.
Aloïsius said:I don't like the idea of people fallig one, two, three times per encounter, and being revived during the fight.
Gloombunny said:I suspect 4e is going to try harder to push the "hit points do not represent physical durability" concept that D&D has always claimed but been a bit half-assed about.
rounser said:There's a default way people to play things with antisocial stereotypes, and I think this thread has coined it. e.g. Half-orcs are often played as dumb, violent bullies. Coincidence? Nope. They're half stupid, violent monsters. 1E Assassins were sometimes played as threatening or outright murdering other PCs if they didn't get their way (via the good old assassination chart), which is why they were excluded from 2E. Same thing. The "warlord" is going to get played as a rude, obnoxious drill sergeant by many, many players...it's a no-brainer.
Given how gamers think, they're the right ones, though. Look, even WOTC have a placeholder warlord ability called "Feather Me Yon Oaf!" Even if the name changes, the attitude will still be there.Dude, you are leaping like Superman to conclusions here.
The Grackle said:Does this not happen in 3e?