Paladin should kill the Warlord and take his stuff!

[rounser]

Where in the name of all that's holy did people get this crazy idea that warlords will have any ability to control other PC's actions?

They don't, but why do you have to assume that the PC listens to the "warlord's inspiring tactics" when they don't even respect him, or want to listen to what he says?

It's bollocks, and makes big assumptions about other people's characters.

 

[kennew142]

Where in the name of all that's holy did people get this crazy idea that warlords will have any ability to control other PCs' actions?

It is pure stubbornness based on a dislike for the name of the class. Designers have refuted this definition of the class, here - on these message boards. To keep making an argument that has been disproved by the designers is misleading - at best.

 

[rounser]

We all know that this is not what the class represents (even if the name would imply otherwise). It is pure stubbornness to define the class in the a manner at odds with its design concept and then argue against that definition as if it were accurate. This is the very definition of a straw man argument.

Underlings take orders and "tactical suggestions". Just watch warlord will be doing in the miniatures game if he's anything like the marshal.

What's in a name? Quite a hell of a lot, actually. Which is why they need a better one.

 

[kennew142]

The only reason that the "leader" role wasn't called "supporter" is because no one wants to play a supporter. Nonetheless, that is exactly what the "leader" role implies. We've been given the text from the PHB that refutes the idea that the character with the leader class is in anyway the leader of the party. I don't like the name of the role anymore than anyone else, but I don't have anything better to offer.

It's one thing for newbies to confuse the issue, since they haven't seen the refutations by the designers. It is unfortunate that folks who hang out here regularly choose to keep making the same "mistake."

 

[rounser]

The only reason that the "leader" role wasn't called "supporter" is because no one wants to play a supporter.

He's not a supporter, though. Anyone who lectures you on how to best outflank that goblin is telling you what to do. That's called an order. Just because it's implied in a bonus doesn't mean that what's implied doesn't stink roleplaying-wise. The fact that you're going to outflank that goblin anyway doesn't matter.

D&D deserves better, IMO.

 

[kennew142]

Underlings take orders and "tactical suggestions". Just watch warlord will be doing in the miniatures game if he's anything like the marshal.

What's in a name? Quite a hell of a lot, actually. Which is why they need a better one.

This is the totality of your argument, both here and in the many other threads where you've said the same thing. We've been shown text from the PHB that will clarify the role. We all know that you don't like the name warlord, bit the class will no more be capable of ordering other players around on the battlefield than will the cleric, or the bard when it appears (assuming of course that it will actually be an arcane leader class).

 

[rounser]

We all know that you don't like the name warlord, bit the class will no more be capable of ordering other players around on the battlefield than will the cleric, or the bard when it appears (assuming of course that it will actually be an arcane leader class).

As I've said, it's implied in the crunch. No, you can't control another PC, but the abilities are keyed such that the "Warren the Warlord knows best, I'll listen to Warren" is hardcoded into the rules when you get that +2 bonus for having Warren at your side, offering you advice.

Never mind that your paladin thinks that Warren is a nitwit, and would never listen to him "in reality".

 

[kennew142]

He's not a supporter, though. Anyone who lectures you on how to best outflank that goblin is telling you what to do. That's called an order. Just because it's implied in a bonus doesn't mean that what's implied doesn't stink roleplaying-wise.

D&D deserves better.

Since we were told that the powers from the White Raven school have mostly migrated over to the warlord, you should take a look at them. That class does not lecture another class on how to outflank a goblin. It has attacks that provide party members with extra attacks, increased flanking opportunities, free movements, etc....

Your opinions are based on worst case assumptions drawn from thin air. They have no grounding in anything that the designers have said, that have appeared in a preview book or article, or that have appeared in anything we've been told is a significant preview of the new edition.

 

[rounser]

It has attacks that provide party members with extra attacks, increased flanking opportunities, free movements, etc....

Well that's even more stupid. Where's the archetype in that? There is none. It's just something WOTC have plucked from thin air because they like the crunch.

 

[kennew142]

I've got to sign out of this argument for now. It's time to go play my White Raven character from Bo9S. It's good to know now that I can boss the other party members around in exchange for the bonuses I provide. It will sure surprise the rest of my party, since there's no support for it in the rules. But, hey - it's implied, right?