D&D General The Crab Bucket Fallacy

[FrogReaver]

If that's all one thinks a warlord is, but that build does nothing my Cheerlord did. No Pack tactics, not position switching, no aiding in saving throws... it's like the hand puppet version of the warlord. Oh and you don't get any of it reliably across encounters, just locked to the bad rest system.

Cheerlords shouldn’t exist. Warlords should. Not cheerlords. It’s not a fantasy archetype.

 

[Neonchameleon]

IMO. A lot of Warlord fans want the 4e overpowered lazy warlord and that’s an archetype that I think should be unsupported.

Why do you either (a) call it overpowered or (b) think it should be unsupported rather than niche? And for the record the archetype I really want back is the Bravura Warlord.

At level 3 a Battlemaster fighter focused on the warlord style maneuvers looks something like.

16, 8, 14. 10, 10, 16
Take the fighting style that gives a superiority dice and a maneuver. Take the temp hp maneuver. At level 3 take the movement granting maneuver, the ally attack maneuver and whatever else strikes your fancy.

As with most martials it doesn’t scale well to late game, but for tier 1 and most of tier 2 it’s pretty comparable to a 4e warlord in capabilities, just not power

LOLNope. If it can not shout at someone on 0hp and provide them with enough energy to stand back up it isn't remotely comparable to a 4e warlord. End of story. It can't do the single most important part of the job of a warlord.

And even then you're at best comparing your expert battlemaster to a PHB only generic first level warlord. You don't even vaguely get any equivalent to Powerful Warning - the ability to warn your allies just in time so attacks miss them and they get an opportunity.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Ummm. Lazy Warlord builds were some of the strongest in 4e.

Umm... No they really weren't. Like a lot of things they got diminishing returns. Having some lazy-ability was a very useful tool. Being a flat out lazy warlord locked you into being a one trick pony whose one trick was barely better than a generic warlord and meant that you couldn't e.g. hold a flank if that's what your party needed.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Cheerlords shouldn’t exist. Warlords should. Not cheerlords. It’s not a fantasy archetype.

So there in the history of Fantasy has never been a rescued love interest (probably a princess) who screams a little too much and inspires their love interest? You must have an awfully narrow reading list.

 

[billd91]

Quick question: Are you a player or a DM mostly? As a player I see the appeal. As a DM there's no way in hell I'm doing anything close to that for every named NPC. Making a rogue or high level wizard I'm going to be playing for months is tedious enough as a player.

Having done it for a campaign, if you had a decent builder spreadsheet or application (and I did), it wasn’t all that hard. Plus, for the important NPCs (like the Nine in the A series modules), building them can be fun.
It’s no worse than building your own villains for Champions or planetary systems for games like Traveller.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Having done it for a campaign, if you had a decent builder spreadsheet or application (and I did), it wasn’t all that hard. Plus, for the important NPCs (like the Nine in the A series modules), building them can be fun.
It’s no worse than building your own villains for Champions or planetary systems for games like Traveller.

Meanwhile in 4e all you need is a business card's worth of rules. And even that is pretty complex compared to a lot of other games.

"It's no worse than building your own villains for Champions" - I really don't want to waste my time doing that either. I want a game where if the NPCs focus on someone I haven't statted up I can stat them up at the table with the players never actually noticing I did so,

 

[FrogReaver]

Why do you either (a) call it overpowered or (b) think it should be unsupported rather than niche? And for the record the archetype I really want back is the Bravura Warlord.

LOLNope. If it can not shout at someone on 0hp and provide them with enough energy to stand back up it isn't remotely comparable to a 4e warlord. End of story. It can't do the single most important part of the job of a warlord.

And even then you're at best comparing your expert battlemaster to a PHB only generic first level warlord. You don't even vaguely get any equivalent to Powerful Warning - the ability to warn your allies just in time so attacks miss them and they get an opportunity.

High level point. Each class in 4e had 10,000 powers (or however many). There’s no way a 5e Warlord can replicate them all.

2nd high level point, martial classes had more overall power in 4e than they do in 5e. Your not going to see the same strength of effects in 5e.

 

[Micah Sweet]

High level point. Each class in 4e had 10,000 powers (or however many). There’s no way a 5e Warlord can replicate them all.

2nd high level point, martial classes had more overall power in 4e than they do in 5e. Your not going to see the same strength of effects in 5e.

Right. And spellcasters had less overall power. Everyone was "special".

 

[FrogReaver]

Umm... No they really weren't. Like a lot of things they got diminishing returns. Having some lazy-ability was a very useful tool. Being a flat out lazy warlord locked you into being a one trick pony whose one trick was barely better than a generic warlord and meant that you couldn't e.g. hold a flank if that's what your party needed.

lazy lords did more damage by attacking with Ally’s. They had healing. They had plenty of multi attack powers (with ally’s) Their support options were top notch, could grant initiative give the whole team tons of movement on turn 1. Etc.

They were much more than 1 trick ponies. They were really strong.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Cheerlords shouldn’t exist. Warlords should. Not cheerlords. It’s not a fantasy archetype.

Inspiring leaders shouldn't exist in fantasy. Got it.