Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Majoru Oakheart" data-source="post: 3943607" data-attributes="member: 5143">Well, fighters have never been about &quot;leading&quot;.&nbsp; They got followers, sure.&nbsp; However, they were not better at making those followers good at fighting than anyone else was.&nbsp; Their actual abilities were the ability to hit enemies with a weapon...hard.Paladins could never really &quot;lead&quot;.&nbsp; Well, they were better than fighters in that they could cast spells to make people better at hitting.&nbsp; But they got the ability to do it maybe once or twice a day even into really high levels(and the bonuses were so small that most people didn't notice).&nbsp; Mostly their role was to survive against almost anything really well and to smite evil enemies.&nbsp; Their healing ability was so poor as to not even count most of the time.Clerics make pretty good leaders.&nbsp; Almost all their main abilities increase the stats, accuracy, damage, and effectiveness of other characters.&nbsp; They are the only battle leader in D&amp;D until now.Warlords are basically a cleric alternative.&nbsp; Although, I can see how you can differentiate the two classes.&nbsp; I think you'll see a Warlord with more abilities like &quot;give an ally a free attack&quot; and &quot;let an ally ignore concealment for an attack&quot; and &quot;give combat advantage to an ally&quot;.&nbsp; Whereas a clerics powers will probably be more &quot;I give you bonuses to your ac&quot;, &quot;your weapon does more damage and is magical&quot;, and &quot;we are all resistant to poison or fire&quot;&quot;.Both will do leader type things but in completely different ways.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Majoru Oakheart, post: 3943607, member: 5143"] Well, fighters have never been about "leading". They got followers, sure. However, they were not better at making those followers good at fighting than anyone else was. Their actual abilities were the ability to hit enemies with a weapon...hard. Paladins could never really "lead". Well, they were better than fighters in that they could cast spells to make people better at hitting. But they got the ability to do it maybe once or twice a day even into really high levels(and the bonuses were so small that most people didn't notice). Mostly their role was to survive against almost anything really well and to smite evil enemies. Their healing ability was so poor as to not even count most of the time. Clerics make pretty good leaders. Almost all their main abilities increase the stats, accuracy, damage, and effectiveness of other characters. They are the only battle leader in D&D until now. Warlords are basically a cleric alternative. Although, I can see how you can differentiate the two classes. I think you'll see a Warlord with more abilities like "give an ally a free attack" and "let an ally ignore concealment for an attack" and "give combat advantage to an ally". Whereas a clerics powers will probably be more "I give you bonuses to your ac", "your weapon does more damage and is magical", and "we are all resistant to poison or fire"". Both will do leader type things but in completely different ways. [/QUOTE]

Verification