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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="El Mahdi" data-source="post: 6660755" data-attributes="member: 59506">We'll just have to agree to disagree here.  That's contrary to my personality and my military training, but there are some valid arguments against a "don't bring me problems, bring me solutions" approach and a significant amount of professionals who advocate against it.  So, I'll just agree to disagree.Thank You.  I'll look these over.  Any aspects of these you'd give prominence to?I disagree.  If greater weight is given to considering certain aspects of the Warlord over other aspects of the Warlord, then it wouldn't be addressed in the unbiased manner that's necessary for success.  Not too mention, I personally don't work that way.In other words, you may think that the HD are unimportant or "putting the cart before the horse", others may not.  I've already had too many people putting too many words into my mouth already, making assumptions about what I'm thinking or my intentions.I'm not going to compound that opinion by actually fulfilling their assumptions...Excellent Analysis.  Thanks.Okay.  Sounds like you're saying keep the extra-attacks of the Fighter class, but consider them an action economy resource rather than a DPR mechanic for the Warlord...though they can use it that way if they want to.Is that correct?And what static damage boosts are you referring to?  Are you talking about bonuses provided by the Fighter's Fighting Styles, or something else?Okay, though it seems like you're going beyond the scope of the 4E Warlord into option territory not previously explored...Interesting.  Though you have no problem with it, do you think that spellcasting might be better accessed by either Feats or Multiclassing?Cool.  Thanks.No; though I'm not sure why this matters.  I didn't play 4E, but I loved the concept of the Warlord.  I like the idea of a non-magical healer.  I've always wanted to incorporate one into my games.  A Warlord is a class (or subclass - I'd personally be fine with this) that I wanted out of 5E; and I'm disappointed also that there isn't one.  I like the Battle Master.  It's my favorite 5E character type after Ranger (Ranger is my favorite in any edition).  I have a Battle Master Archer as an NPC in my current campaign.  However, I think there's a glaring hole in the game without an Inspiring Warlord build.Also, I'm currently in desperate need of an intellectual/mental distraction.I understand, and want these fulfilled also.  For selfish/personal reasons, and for the community itself.  Isn't that just as bad as what you believe people are doing to you?  And assuming people are stupid or ignorant...really?  Just because you don't like their ideas, doesn't make them stupid or ignorant...or edition warring...or inconsiderate...or anything else.  Not to mention that doing this is exactly what you, Umbran, and others accused me of...And here's the assuming and mind-reading again.  Umbran made the same mistake.  I am not upset that people didn't like my idea.  I'm an aircraft avionics craftsman.  Troubleshooting is what I do, and troubleshooting usually involves trying idea after idea that all fail - until one doesn't.  Having my ideas not work, having my ideas refuted or shot-down, having my ideas rationally debunked, are all a matter of course for me.  This doesn't upset me in the least.  What I was upset about is that people reacted to my idea with the same vague, generalized complaining that has been the hallmark of this continuing conversation, rather than rational and polite discourse.  I was upset that they responded with the same dismissiveness and assumptions characterized by your attitude voiced above; the attitude of "[they should just] shut up because it is quite clear that they don't have a clue what they are talking about."And I'm confounded as to why expressions of this attitude are given a free pass.As to the idea that "it's all been done": if that were so, then why is everybody still here talking about it?ENWorld, while definitely providing an entertainment outlet (maybe even predominantly so), is also a legitimate cultural discourse community.  Sure, it's subject matter is a game, but it is a game that we all devote substantial time and resources to and take fairly seriously.  In my opinion, it's as legitimate a cultural discourse community as any other scholarly discourse community.  Whether people are consciously aware of this, doesn't make it any less so.So, with this being a fairly serious discourse community, if this subject was truly futile, if you or anyone else here participating in this discussion truly thought that all these explorations were the waste of time you  characterize them as, then this thread would more than likely not exist, and certainly would not have progressed through 170+ posts."It's all been done" is to me just as irrational a justification to not do something as "that's the way we've always done it" is to keep doing something.I won't ascribe to that thinking.Until I try it and see it not work, No.I will not limit my potential avenues of inquiry or exploration.If there was a deadline or other mitigating factor, then I would; but there isn't, so I won't.</blockquote>

Verification