Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ChrisCarlson" data-source="post: 6738819" data-attributes="member: 6801216">Yet several people, in threads currently visible in this temporary subforum. IIRC,  [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION], for example, has said that the absence of a warlord class is an insult to him and other 4e favoritists. If I'm misrepresenting your position, Tony, please correct me on this front.Odd. As well, where were you earlier telling people you didn't believe the absence of a warlord was a direct slight against a "large swath of players"?But no, your memory isn't all that bad. I have pointed out how that "bossy" class features are bad game elements. Related tangent: Are you one of the various people going around pointing out how much the ranger sucks? That favored enemy/terrain is not very well designed, nor useful? I feel the same about agency-removing abilities that place one character over another. It's bad design.We've been asking for weeks for an example of martial/warlord action granting that does not involve giving orders, nor the receiver being described as admiring the greatness of the giver. What do we get? Crickets.Haven't seen the PDK yet. Wanna bet there's verbiage in these relevant class features that describe one or both of these agency-robing sticking points?Welcome to the dark side. Here's the cookie we promised you.</blockquote>