What is missing from 4E
- Thread starter thecasualoblivion
- Start date
Halivar
First Post
I edited my post for clarity.
We're not talking sidekicks, though. Conan's companions are going to be that; the darn story's named after him. PCs are generally peers. They should not become sidekicks or subordinates just because someone deigns to take a certain class which implies such things. D&D had sidekicks. They were called retainers, hirelings, followers or henchmen, and they were all NPCs.
Last edited:
Our group's Warlord is a former soldier turned counselor and motivational speaker. We picture him like Dr. Phil in chainmail. In fact, his avatar on our messageboard is a lovely .jpeg of Dr. Phil's head on Arnie-as-Conan's body...
... anyway, no one feels as if the warlord is ordering us around or telling the rest of our character's what to do. It's not intrusive in the slightest. Frankly, we like the bonuses he tosses around (and the amusing role-playing that accompanies them).
... anyway, no one feels as if the warlord is ordering us around or telling the rest of our character's what to do. It's not intrusive in the slightest. Frankly, we like the bonuses he tosses around (and the amusing role-playing that accompanies them).
FireLance
Legend
And they don't. Not any more than 3e PCs were the sidekicks of the bard or whoever else was giving them combat bonuses, anyway.
I still don't see why a character who is focused on inspiring others, or pointing out opportunities, or creating openings for others to exploit has to be part of a military hierarchy, to give orders, or to turn the other PCs into sidekicks.
Hussar
Legend
Wow, it's been almost a year now and this poor horse is still being flogged.
We get it, you don't like warlords Rounser. You refuse to accept any definition other than your own and then claim that warlords make no sense and don't belong in the game. Perhaps allowing for a slight smidgeon of unlocking those jaws of death you have clamped on the idea that warlords=bad might help.
We get it, you don't like warlords Rounser. You refuse to accept any definition other than your own and then claim that warlords make no sense and don't belong in the game. Perhaps allowing for a slight smidgeon of unlocking those jaws of death you have clamped on the idea that warlords=bad might help.
FireLance
Legend
Sigged!
thecasualoblivion
First Post
My argument on how Warlords aren't automatically the leader of the party and don't give orders:
In military terms, Platoons are lead by a Lieutennant. A green, straight out of West Point second Lieutennant is still technically in charge of the enlisted personnel under him. That being said, the Platoon will have a Sergeant. This Sergeant is an enlisted man who while under the command of the Lieutennant, will have vastly more experience than said Lieutennant thanks to having years of service. He's not in charge or giving the final orders, but in a lot of cases he knows the job better than his Lieutennant does. The Clint Eastwood movie Heartbreak Ridge is a great example of this.
A D&D Warlord need not be the Lieutennant and be the commander of the party. He can be the Sergeant, who while not in charge knows more about tactics than the person who is. While in the presence of the Lieutnennant, the Sergeant doesn't command. He advises, and his advice is worth listening to.
In military terms, Platoons are lead by a Lieutennant. A green, straight out of West Point second Lieutennant is still technically in charge of the enlisted personnel under him. That being said, the Platoon will have a Sergeant. This Sergeant is an enlisted man who while under the command of the Lieutennant, will have vastly more experience than said Lieutennant thanks to having years of service. He's not in charge or giving the final orders, but in a lot of cases he knows the job better than his Lieutennant does. The Clint Eastwood movie Heartbreak Ridge is a great example of this.
A D&D Warlord need not be the Lieutennant and be the commander of the party. He can be the Sergeant, who while not in charge knows more about tactics than the person who is. While in the presence of the Lieutnennant, the Sergeant doesn't command. He advises, and his advice is worth listening to.
ExploderWizard
Hero
I don't have that huge a problem with the warlord class, but it is one example of a class that would suffer from being much less useful if one were to operate alone.
All classes work better as part of a team but the warlord seems a bit more team dependent than any other core class.
A warlord reminds me of any of several WOW classes that are specc'd for group play. Playing one on a solo adventure would be more tedious than solo questing with a resto druid.
All classes work better as part of a team but the warlord seems a bit more team dependent than any other core class.
A warlord reminds me of any of several WOW classes that are specc'd for group play. Playing one on a solo adventure would be more tedious than solo questing with a resto druid.
Similar Threads
