Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Guest 6801328" data-source="post: 7627320">Unlike Mystic, rapiers, drow, and some of the nuttier races, which I don't like for reasons mostly of flavor (and maybe some mechanical weirdness) the problem with Warlords is that they are, be definition and design, leaders.&nbsp; The whole concept is built around the idea that one member of the team isn't actually a peer, but is better than them.&nbsp; That the other characters are drawn to his/her leadership and charisma and knowledge.&nbsp; Sure, there are a smattering of other abilities in the game that do this.&nbsp; But Warlord is an entire class built around the core concept of defining what other characters think of you.&nbsp; Leadership and respect are supposed to be earned over time, but the Warlord assumes you get it by choosing a character class.And to ignore that, to pretend that fluff isn't there, is to stop roleplaying and play D&amp;D like it's a boardgame.&nbsp; &quot;I'll grant Elfcrusher my action.&quot;&nbsp; &quot;Got it.&nbsp; I'll make a sneak attack.&nbsp; That does 23 damage.&quot;Just the fact that nobody can come up with a really good alternative name...that the only name that seems to apply is one that connotes supremacy...should be an indication of something.&nbsp; (Somebody suggested &quot;Commander&quot;.&nbsp; My point EXACTLY.)And before anybody assumes that I'm simply edition warring (or defending hitpoints as meat, or fighting to stamp out martial powers, or whatever) I stopped playing D&amp;D about the time 3rd edition came out, and came back during D&amp;D Next.&nbsp; When I started asking on the forums, &quot;Wait, what's this Warlord thing?&quot; and people started describing it, the above was my reaction.&nbsp; It's not a smokescreen for ulterior motives.Sure, but there are countless ways to create more interesting martial tactics without the fluff of Warlord.&nbsp; Start by designing abilities that affect monsters, not other PCs.&nbsp; Want to grant somebody an attack?&nbsp; Have an ability that forces a monster to trigger opportunity attacks.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Guest 6801328, post: 7627320"] Unlike Mystic, rapiers, drow, and some of the nuttier races, which I don't like for reasons mostly of flavor (and maybe some mechanical weirdness) the problem with Warlords is that they are, be definition and design, leaders. The whole concept is built around the idea that one member of the team isn't actually a peer, but is better than them. That the other characters are drawn to his/her leadership and charisma and knowledge. Sure, there are a smattering of other abilities in the game that do this. But Warlord is an entire class built around the core concept of defining what other characters think of you. Leadership and respect are supposed to be earned over time, but the Warlord assumes you get it by choosing a character class. And to ignore that, to pretend that fluff isn't there, is to stop roleplaying and play D&D like it's a boardgame. "I'll grant Elfcrusher my action." "Got it. I'll make a sneak attack. That does 23 damage." Just the fact that nobody can come up with a really good alternative name...that the only name that seems to apply is one that connotes supremacy...should be an indication of something. (Somebody suggested "Commander". My point EXACTLY.) And before anybody assumes that I'm simply edition warring (or defending hitpoints as meat, or fighting to stamp out martial powers, or whatever) I stopped playing D&D about the time 3rd edition came out, and came back during D&D Next. When I started asking on the forums, "Wait, what's this Warlord thing?" and people started describing it, the above was my reaction. It's not a smokescreen for ulterior motives. Sure, but there are countless ways to create more interesting martial tactics without the fluff of Warlord. Start by designing abilities that affect monsters, not other PCs. Want to grant somebody an attack? Have an ability that forces a monster to trigger opportunity attacks. [/QUOTE]

Verification