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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6727826" data-attributes="member: 996">Elfcrusher is right:   For example, there are those who will try to misrepresent wanting the class as a desire to dominate play by taking up the mantle of 'leader,' even though that mantle is already available via a feat and a couple of backgrounds, and the original 4e material went out of it's way to say that various 'Leader' classes (Cleric, Warlord, Druid, Artificer etc) were not meant to be leaders in that literal sense, but merely a more palatable version of the traditional Clerical 'band-aid' or support role.  Conversely, the lingering edition-war animosity faced by the Warlord, though substantial and very real, is not the only reason some folks take exception to the Warlord.  Elfcrusher, himself, for instance, though he wasn't around for the edition war (even though you'll see a lot of 'new' accounts that are made by people who were, in his case, it's quite clearly true) objects to the 'inspiring' aspect, both in the Warlord, and in existing mechanics like the Inspiring Leader feat, because they evoke an emotional response in a PC, and a player denying that response for RP reasons would be 'punished' for not letting another player dictate his character's emotional response with the loss of the mechanical benefits of being inspired.  In the case of Inspiring Leader, that's just some temps, but in the case of a very Inspiration-focused Warlord, it could be virtually the whole suite of support contribution he has to offer.  You can see how that's a legitimate concern with how people might play the warlord at the table.</blockquote>

Verification