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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7066671" data-attributes="member: 996">At the risk of spoiling the affirmation for you (8 XP and counting, with some from each side of the polite & erudite warlord debates),  it's also, IMO, similar to claiming we don't need a Warlord class because anyone can be a charismatic leader or use good tactics.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Seriously, though, I'd still like to jump on your bandwagon and play a few bars:  It's often been said, and not without reason, that a class shouldn't have mechanical advantages 'balanced' by RP restrictions.  The "LG Only" traditional paladin has oft been the poster boy for that objection, so it's hardly surprising it come to the fore in this case.  I think the critical difference, here, is that it's not just RP 'restrictions' that are independent of the 'advantages,' it's that the mechanics /are support for the RP/, for a concept that the game makes difficult to carry off with RP alone (because it's really pretty easy to KO enemies in combat rather than kill them, for instance, and because there aren't anything like 3.5 diplomancy rules, and they'd be broken if there were, &c).  The RP supported /isn't/ a restriction, it's a concept, and it's not paying for anything, it's being paid for, enabled, with that mechanical support.And, it's not like the concept or trope isn't a pervasive one.  We may have different feelings about the concept - like it's a perverse product of unrealistic Star Trek Utopianism, or goofy compromises to slide a violent show in under the BS&P (I mean, just for hypothetical examples) - but if someone wants to play one, the game's richer for having mechanical options that enable it.</blockquote>

Verification