Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="GreenTengu" data-source="post: 6778024" data-attributes="member: 6777454">Oh, absolutely so! A 20th level warrior can run around wearing a fortress and attack 4x as fast as anyone else possibly can and can take a punishment equivalent to an entire army and basically slaughter a 1000 normal people in battle single handedly.... and if anyone else is along for the ride, that's cool, but they really don't need you.The 20th level Warlord is more like... maybe he can't beat you one-on-one in a gladiator fight, but if you have armies and he is the guy with only 1,000 men and you have 20,000 equally trained men, he'll decimate you. Or, more importantly, he'll find a way for his 5 guys to beat 100 guys even if his 5 guys aren't necessarily massively superior to those 100. Tactics, psychology, and luck are his weapons, not his individual badassness.That is a rather fundamental difference in the divide. It isn't about being a Fighter, it is about being a Cleric while replacing the whole deity stuff with human spirit, ingenuity, resilience and such.The thing is-- if the game can allow for a Sorcerer and a Warlock alternatives for a mage and can allow for a Barbarian, Paladin and a Ranger equivalent for a Fighter, what exactly is the push-back for allowing for someone who can fulfill the absolute requisite for every single group that expects to be at all successful at anything ever from having an alternative to the Cleric that doesn't use the whole 'god' stuff? Because neither the Druid nor Bard are actual equivalents given that both are primarily focused on being the secondary fall-back for everything the main 4 do.When I say I want to play a Warlord (or another term for the concept-- Marshal, Commander, etc.) what I am saying is NOT that I want to be as formidable and killy as the Fighter. It does not mean that I want to have the Bard's illusion nor lore mastery nor thiefy talents. What is means is that I want to be able to heal, protect and create opportunities for the rest of the party without that aspect of saying that my character is only able to because of their pious  faith and devotion to some deity that has been predecided by the setting, but rather able to do so because of their quick wit, their cunning, their understanding of squad maneuvers and their understanding of psychology that allows them to push their allies beyond what even they believed themselves capable of.Its about allowing the "coach" to be a valid substitute for the "priest". I really, REALLY don't understand the need to treat the Fighter as the base this concept should come from except for the fact that D&D has always resorted to "warrior" a.k.a. "fighter" for any generic concept it fails to define even if that concept isn't about having vast amounts of hit points and wearing bulky armor and slicing everyone to pieces with super-speed sword strikes.</blockquote>

Verification