Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ZombieRoboNinja" data-source="post: 4031957" data-attributes="member: 54843">Which of the warlord abilities we've seen suggests bossing anyone around? "Feather Me Yon Oaf" is just pointing out a vulnerable enemy, and "Hammer and Anvil" is drawing an enemy's attention with your attack so that an ally gets in a hit of his own. This isn't just me trying to justify the abilities - it's really the way they seem to be designed. Mechanically, the warlord doesn't seem to need to boss anybody around any more than the wizard does when he's trying to lay down fireballs. A party is always going to need a certain level of mutual respect in order to optimize tactics, but lack of that respect doesn't seem likely to "break" warlords any more than it does other classes. You can ignore those free attacks, just like you can Will save to resist the cleric's heal spells, and it'll make about as much sense.Let's say I'm a grumpy mercenary Fighter forming a party. I know I need someone to keep us stitched up. Who sounds more appealing, the guy who knows a lot about tactics (and a thing or two about combat triage to boot), or the preachy chick who won't shut up about Pelor? Maybe the guy down the hall playing a LUTE? I'd take a warlord over a cleric or bard any day!Rounser: I'm not going to play the game of "naming warlords from fiction" with you, because you'll always be able to say they're just fighters with a couple leadership talents. Just as you could say a ranger is just a fighter with a couple archery talents. (Heck, in 3e that made for a better build anyway.) I'd say that ranger and warlord differ from "fighter" to about the same degree, both in roleplaying and in mechanics.</blockquote>

Verification