Warlord Player's job is to tell other players what to do??

[rounser]

The point is that the possibility of inadvertently nerfing yourself by not having skills in a particular area has been removed, and the consequential side-effect is to remove opportunities to purposefully nerf yourself as well. Here too can be seen a tradeoff away from independence towards group functionality. Isn't it great?

Given how little skills seemed to matter on the battlefield (with the odd exception like bluff or tumble), I still could care less. I'm more concerned about how thematically-void stuff like this is sneaking in as a core class than the whole independence issue anyway.

Here, have an apple.

 

[hong]

Given how little skills seemed to matter on the battlefield (with the odd exception like bluff or tumble), I still could care less.

What, so people's abilities on the battlefield are all that matters now?

How... videogamey.

I'm more concerned about how thematically-void stuff like this is sneaking in as a core class than the whole independence issue anyway.

D00d, you just pointed out elsewhere that the theme for warlord is "military officer". Now you may not like that theme, but it is perfectly valid, and in fact highly evocative when one considers how many military-ish heroes there are in fiction, history, myth and even videogames. Make up your mind. Does it have a theme, or not?

Here, have an apple.

Indeed.

 

[rounser]

What, so people's abilities on the battlefield are all that matters now?

How... videogamey.

Meh. I don't really care about this issue either way, even if you do (combat-rules-to-the exclusion-of-all-else-and-DM-fiat-the-rest D&D and combat-and-everything-else-codified-in-the-rules D&D both work fine, as past editions and D&D derivative games seem to have proven).

Feel free to drag the conversation there if it makes you feel better.

 

[Zimri]

"Being independent shouldn't be encouraged by the rules". So too bad if you're roleplaying someone who isn't Captain Cooperation, it's now hardcoded into the D&D ruleset that you're playing wrong.

So much for simulating fantasy, where independent heroes are a dime a dozen.

1) how is it "hardcoded" into the rules ? And I think equally as important to frank and open intelligent discussion what does "hardcoded" mean to you. To me it means unable to avoid at all ever, I just don't see that as the case.

2) How do you have to be "Captain Cooperation" to want your team to win as quickly and effectively as possible ? I fail to see what is keeping your characters from being as surly in game as you might like them to be

3) This is a cooperative team game. If you are playing with others then yes take them into account. If you are just playing with yourself it won't matter if anyone else in the verse makes plays and enjoys a warlord.

4) Do you really play the guy in the party that is all broody and a loner, not contributing except to scout off ahead and get caught so he needs rescued, or starting a bar brawl over an imagined slight ?

 

[rounser]

Make up your mind. Does it have a theme, or not?

It has a theme of sorts if you excuse the inappropriate name and give it a proper military title, but one that belongs in a war or military engagement, and that doesn't fit by default in an adventuring party, because not every adventuring party is a military squad.

D&D parties are not armies, hong. This is Dungeons and Dragons, not Full Metal Scabbard. D&D was about taking the fantasy heroes off of the battlefield and sending them into a dungeon without the soldiers, just like in the novels. Duh.

(And yes, I know there are military-themed fantasy hero groups in novels, even Tolkien features them...but they're not the default.)

 

[Zimri]

It has a theme of sorts if you excuse the inappropriate name and give it a proper military title, but one that belongs in a war or military engagement, and that doesn't fit by default in an adventuring party, because not every adventuring party is a military squad.

D&D parties are not armies, hong. This is Dungeons and Dragons, not Full Metal Scabbard.

Show me how the inclusion of a warlord turns my adventuring party into a military squad anymore than a class from BO9S or heck even a fighter or anyone that needs flanking does.

 

[Sir Sebastian Hardin]

It's not about having nice buddies or jerks in the table.
It's about a weird class that can move his teamates around (without ANY magical power) as he sees fit... I know it's a "cool and fun" mechanic, very useful, etc. But it should not happen, a player moves his mini... and is not messing arround with the rest of the board...
Some of you are comparing it with backstabbing or poisoning your teammates.... at least here's an attack roll/defense involved... Not just arbitrarily moving other dudes arround... It feels more like a board game... Again... this "Narrative" stuff.... the other players tell the story too... and they may diceide what goes on with my character too. (I want my imersion atmosphere back!)

 

[arscott]

Crazy Apologist Theory Number One:

Hmm. Maybe the Warlord is the one doing the sliding because the rules explicitly state that you may never slide your own character. (And I've seen enough of the Dreaded CharOp board to know that there would be good reasons for such a rule).

 

[Sir Sebastian Hardin]

Edit: Mirror Imaged post

 

[rounser]

Show me how the inclusion of a warlord turns my adventuring party into a military squad anymore than a class from BO9S or heck even a fighter or anyone that needs flanking does.

Given that the warlord borrows from Bo9S, I don't see your point.

Flanking is just a fact of combat - if you can't guard your flank you're at a disadvantage. Again, fail to see your point.