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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5724861" data-attributes="member: 82106">I think the question is calibrating what 'class' means exactly. A Warlord in the sense imagined by 4e is a warrior leader. If you want to be a high INT leader, then you use a different class, though honestly you can certainly have a warlord with a good INT. The point is the character archetype that the Warlord implements is a military commander type. Lets suppose you wanted a high INT Warlord. How would that work? What powers would he use? Warlords powers are primarily "smack stuff with weapons" oriented. To make a different variation you'd have to have a whole other set of powers, and now you're back to V classes, which seem pointless to me at this point. At best such a thing would essentially be the 'lazy' build, which can already dump STR. I think the problem is that all these kinds of discussions rapidly get back to larger questions, which in turn require looking at how the details fall out when you dig down. This is why good game design is NOT easy, you have to iterate over the whole design a number of times, go down some blind alleys, rethink, recalibrate, do it again, etc. Frankly I don't think any of the things you guys are saying are not good commentary and depending on what choices you make different possibilities may turn out to be better or worse. I've kind of gotten to the point in the whole debate where pen has to hit paper and something has to be mapped out and tested in order for any of the different concepts to be really evaluated.</blockquote>

Verification