D&D 4E Rich Baker on his 4e Warlord

[Rechan]

This was said by a guy at wizard forums:

Classes should not be SAD nor MAD, they should be MEB (multiple effective builds); meaning that a fighter could benefit from charisma, intelligence, wisdom, whathaveyou, depending on his talent choices.

Edit: If talents or similar is the thing for 4e, a paladin wouldn't lose out on his divine grace by having low cha, because he would chose another talent instead, one which works of his good stat (say, for example, Dex?)

Thank you.

 

[Aage]

THis is one of those times that you shouldn't be taken seriously, isn't it? Because you're clearly not trying to make a point here.

I certainly believe he is, and actually he does have a point.. You can't say that a fighter is ineffective cause he needs 4 stats when everybody needs 4 stats... weak compared to what? 3e?

 

[Rechan]

I certainly believe he is, and actually he does have a point.. You can't say that a fighter is ineffective cause he needs 4 stats when everybody needs 4 stats... weak compared to what? 3e?

I can say it. Watch me.

 

[hong]

I DO.

Havn't you gotten that yet?

Ah, but you have yet to convince me to care that you care.

Except that the two are not created equal. You're using an example of an near worthless feat over one that's optimally more useful and has much more traction

Okay, I could choose Power Attack instead of Combat Expertise. Same principle.

Except that should should not be built into his class as a balancing factor. It leads to spreading resources too thin.

"Too thin" relative to what?

 

[Merlin the Tuna]

Or else it's Diablo I all over again where you end up with multiclassed Fighter/Mages.

Maybe in bizarro world where Diablo has multiclassing.

 

[hong]

THis is one of those times that you shouldn't be taken seriously, isn't it? Because you're clearly not trying to make a point here.

Just because a point is not immediately comprehensible does not make it ultimately inapplicable.

 

[Aage]

I can say it. Watch me.

Yeah, there's an excellent argument

Anyway, I for one certainly hope that each class can choose between different abilities, based on the talents they want to have.. So basically, if the Warlord wants to be SAD he could max his charisma and be a darned good leader... but he wouldn't be a very good swordsman, nor particularly tactical... OR he could spread he resources more thinly, to be good at all 3, or perhaps just 2?

 

[Rechan]

Ah, but you have yet to convince me to care that you care.

I really don't care if you care that I care. You don't have to agree with me. I don't come to the internet to convince others.

Okay, I could choose Power Attack instead of Combat Expertise. Same principle.

Except that neither are class dependent. Apples and orangutans.

"Too thin" relative to what?

How many times are you going to ask that question before you make a point? I'm tired of answering it for you to dance around in circles and giggle gleefully.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I can say it. Watch me.

You should probably take a deep breath and take a crack at explaining your point of view a bit better. Because, honestly, you're not making a clear point here.

If everyone has their abilities dependent on multiple stats, no one is "subpar." They're all just plain par.

 

[Rechan]

If everyone has their abilities dependent on multiple stats, no one is "subpar." They're all just plain par.

It doesn't matter if everyone has it or not.

You can have a party of all Paladins and Monks, all with MAD, and they're still going to be ineffective against whatever they come up against.

"Everyone Sucks Equally" does not sound like a winning argument to me.