Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Corwin" data-source="post: 7040528" data-attributes="member: 1560">I'd like to put a finer point on the following:When a balanced 4-man party (fighter, wizard, rogue, cleric as an example) adds a fifth PC, it gets significantly more powerful at whatever that 5th PC is focused on. At killing stuff with weapons by adding a second fighter. Or significantly more powerful at healing during a fight by adding a second cleric. Or significantly more powerful at AoE control by adding a second wizard. You get the point.But a warlord added to the group gives them that &quot;significantly more powerful&quot; aspect at *all* those things because each round they get to double down on the one thing they need most. Whatever that may be. The warlord becomes a proto-fighterwizardroguecleric. Fighting an army of mooks? Two fireballs in one round coming right up! Assassin and warlord both going before the BBEG in round one? Guess that means two full rounds worth of murderizing goodness on the poor sob! Paladin in the group and your fighting powerful undead or fiends? So much smiting gonna go down! And so on...Sure, instead of that warlord you could have a second wizard in a group. So you are a group who's getting those double fireballs against large groups. But he's always a wizard. Every encounter. And never one of those other examples. That wizard isn't a second assassin when it would count. Or that second paladin to get all those smites in on that scary archfiend (who, BTW, has magic resistance - good thing you have a double round of smites instead of being stuck with that second wizard right now, huh?).That's the point Imaro and others are getting at. And I agree. Unlimited access to such flexibility is just too good.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Corwin, post: 7040528, member: 1560"] I'd like to put a finer point on the following: When a balanced 4-man party (fighter, wizard, rogue, cleric as an example) adds a fifth PC, it gets significantly more powerful at whatever that 5th PC is focused on. At killing stuff with weapons by adding a second fighter. Or significantly more powerful at healing during a fight by adding a second cleric. Or significantly more powerful at AoE control by adding a second wizard. You get the point. But a warlord added to the group gives them that "significantly more powerful" aspect at *all* those things because each round they get to double down on the one thing they need most. Whatever that may be. The warlord becomes a proto-fighterwizardroguecleric. Fighting an army of mooks? Two fireballs in one round coming right up! Assassin and warlord both going before the BBEG in round one? Guess that means two full rounds worth of murderizing goodness on the poor sob! Paladin in the group and your fighting powerful undead or fiends? So much smiting gonna go down! And so on... Sure, instead of that warlord you could have a second wizard in a group. So you are a group who's getting those double fireballs against large groups. But he's always a wizard. Every encounter. And never one of those other examples. That wizard isn't a second assassin when it would count. Or that second paladin to get all those smites in on that scary archfiend (who, BTW, has magic resistance - good thing you have a double round of smites instead of being stuck with that second wizard right now, huh?). That's the point Imaro and others are getting at. And I agree. Unlimited access to such flexibility is just too good. [/QUOTE]

Verification