Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6718575" data-attributes="member: 996">Wait, Fighters were qualified to be competent at some point?I must've blinked.&nbsp; ;PSeriously, (well, not too seriously) you could track 'fighter erosion' all the way back to the introduction of the Thief in Greyhawk back in early 0D&amp;D, before that, legend has it, fighters could find traps by, well, looking for them... (y'know, 10' pole and all that jazz).It opened up modes of play that were only available to casters before.&nbsp;&nbsp; Primarily the sort of support role that'd be familiar to returning AD&amp;Ders as the 'cleric' or 'healer' role (as in &quot;Hey guys! can I join your D&amp;D game?&quot;&nbsp; &quot;Sure, but we need a Cleric&quot;&nbsp; &quot;...oh... ok, I guess...&quot;), you could have a functional/survivable party without anyone having to play a holy-roller or mistletoe-waving hippie.&nbsp; (In a similar vein, the Cleric's 'band aid' function was made a lot less onerous in the editions between 2e and 5e - and 5e retains a little of that with stuff like HD as a healing mechanic, and the Healing Word spell.)It has a class with the same name, and a similar concept, but it's less flexible. The game's always at least vaguely suggested that fighters could be particularly suited to leadership - the way they got the most followers at 'name level' in 1e, for instance, 3e came right out and said fighters were the 'natural' party leader - but never provided mechanics that really backed that up.&nbsp; You could RP bossing everyone around, but it was just annoying, so that idea kinda lapsed, and the fighter 'eroded' as Leatherhead put it.&nbsp; The Warlord had actual mechanics that modeled the contribution of a tactical and/or inspiring leader, without needing the player to be a tactical genius (or, more accurately, agree with the DM about what constituted 'good tactics') or actually boss around his fellow players IC.&nbsp; It's a little abstract (like a lot of things in D&amp;D) but a tidy way of modeling a concept that had been problematic up to that point.&nbsp; Sure, no problem.&nbsp; You missed a kerfluffle we call the 'edition war' over WotC rolling rev on D&amp;D in 2008 a few years earlier than they should have (IMHO, &amp; I'm not exactly alone in that), and since that's when the Warlord was introduced, there's a certain amount of lingering animosity towards it.I suppose you might get there via multi-classing.&nbsp; There is a Psion (what they called the psionicist post-2e) up as a UA article under the name 'Mystic' - which should be a flavor very compatible with that wuxia concept.&nbsp; Don't know what you'll think of the mechanics, though, it's pretty different from AD&amp;D, I think (never really looked at the psionicist closely, I really think of the 1e psionics appendix when I think 'psionics').</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6718575, member: 996"] Wait, Fighters were qualified to be competent at some point? I must've blinked. ;P Seriously, (well, not too seriously) you could track 'fighter erosion' all the way back to the introduction of the Thief in Greyhawk back in early 0D&D, before that, legend has it, fighters could find traps by, well, looking for them... (y'know, 10' pole and all that jazz). It opened up modes of play that were only available to casters before. Primarily the sort of support role that'd be familiar to returning AD&Ders as the 'cleric' or 'healer' role (as in "Hey guys! can I join your D&D game?" "Sure, but [i]we need a Cleric[/i]" "...oh... ok, I guess..."), you could have a functional/survivable party without anyone having to play a holy-roller or mistletoe-waving hippie. (In a similar vein, the Cleric's 'band aid' function was made a lot less onerous in the editions between 2e and 5e - and 5e retains a little of that with stuff like HD as a healing mechanic, and the Healing Word spell.) It has a class with the same name, and a similar concept, but it's less flexible. The game's always at least vaguely suggested that fighters could be particularly suited to leadership - the way they got the most followers at 'name level' in 1e, for instance, 3e came right out and said fighters were the 'natural' party leader - but never provided mechanics that really backed that up. You could RP bossing everyone around, but it was just annoying, so that idea kinda lapsed, and the fighter 'eroded' as Leatherhead put it. The Warlord had actual mechanics that modeled the contribution of a tactical and/or inspiring leader, without needing the player to be a tactical genius (or, more accurately, agree with the DM about what constituted 'good tactics') or actually boss around his fellow players IC. It's a little abstract (like a lot of things in D&D) but a tidy way of modeling a concept that had been problematic up to that point. Sure, no problem. You missed a kerfluffle we call the 'edition war' over WotC rolling rev on D&D in 2008 a few years earlier than they should have (IMHO, & I'm not exactly alone in that), and since that's when the Warlord was introduced, there's a certain amount of lingering animosity towards it. I suppose you might get there via multi-classing. There is a Psion (what they called the psionicist post-2e) up as a UA article under the name 'Mystic' - which should be a flavor very compatible with that wuxia concept. Don't know what you'll think of the mechanics, though, it's pretty different from AD&D, I think (never really looked at the psionicist closely, I really think of the 1e psionics appendix when I think 'psionics'). [/QUOTE]

Verification