Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Guest 6801328" data-source="post: 7040809">(Snipping the rest to save space.)Really great post.&nbsp; Informative, and level-headed.I'll toss out there that I stopped playing D&amp;D after 2nd Edition and came back during Next.&nbsp; When I found some forums the first thing I noticed was this raging debate about Warlords.&nbsp; I asked &quot;What's a Warlord?&quot;So my opposition has nothing to do with hating 4e, and nothing to do with martial healing (which I'm fine with).Here's why I loathe the Warlord:1) The name.&nbsp; For all the usual reasons.&nbsp; (I'll get to the other options in a sec.)2) The &quot;leader&quot; concept.&nbsp; I am just fundamentally opposed to one class being the leader.&nbsp; Proponents keep saying &quot;He's not really the leader, that's just one of the roles from 4e and it really means 'support'.&quot;&nbsp; But I'm not buying it.&nbsp; First of all, descriptions of Warlord abilities are almost all &quot;giving orders&quot; or &quot;inspiring&quot; or &quot;telling what to do&quot;.&nbsp; Things like, &quot;Make a suggestion on how to better kill that orc.&quot;&nbsp; What?&nbsp; My fighter (you know, the melee combat specialist) of the same level as your Warlord needs to be told how to kill an orc?&nbsp; And now you're giving advice to the rogue, too?&nbsp; So you're also an expert at sneak attacks?More evidence that a lot of people think that &quot;leader&quot; means more than combat role:&nbsp;- In arguments about &quot;martial healing&quot; (which, again, I'm fine with and I don't think needs to be justified) the example of Patton screaming at a private is used as an example.&nbsp; Uh-huh.&nbsp; So your character is the general and mine is the private.&nbsp; Gotcha. &nbsp;- In fact all the arguments for this sort of martial healing (&quot;the One True Love who shows up at the dying man's bedside and inspires him to rise up and walk&quot;, etc.) rely, some how or another, on influence and interpersonal bonds.&nbsp; And that's what bothers me.&nbsp; An entire class based on the concept of my character looking up to your character.&nbsp; It would be like having a class called &quot;Flirt&quot; whose power derived from every other PC lusting after him/her.&nbsp; Sorry, but no: you don't get to define my character's emotions because of the class you chose.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;- When asked 'what character from history or fiction is a Warlord' you hear that Aragorn was Warlord, not a Ranger.&nbsp; Conan was a warlord, not a barbarian.&nbsp; King Arthur was a warlord not a fighter.&nbsp; Odysseus was a warlord not an archer.&nbsp; Batman was a warlord not a...whatever the $#@% he is.&nbsp; Etc.&nbsp; See the pattern?&nbsp; The heroes are all warlords.&nbsp; Who represents the other classes?&nbsp; Sidekicks.Groups do have leaders, of course, and I don't even mind there being mechanics to reinforce the idea.&nbsp; But it shouldn't be restricted to a class.&nbsp; Which is why I'm fine with sub-classes and feats and the like granting leader-like abilities.3) Other naming:Captain: No.&nbsp; See #2 above.&nbsp; (Likewise for all titles derived from military rank.)Tactician: Non-offensive, but just awful.&nbsp; Besides, name a character from history or fiction who is a tactician?&nbsp; And by that, I mean, if you went up to a stranger on the street and said, &quot;What was Batman?&quot; they would say, &quot;Oh, he was a tactician!&quot;See what I mean?&nbsp; If you accept (at least verbally, even if you don't really believe it) that this class concept isn't actually a leader, there's not really a coherent class concept left.&nbsp; There's a grab-bag of mechanics, sure, but not a class concept that can be described using any terminology that somebody who never played 4e would understand.&nbsp; (I still BARELY get it, and only believe that it adds a useful dimension to combat, and isn't just about nostalgia for OP-ness, because Bawylie attests to it and I think he's pretty sensible.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Guest 6801328, post: 7040809"] (Snipping the rest to save space.) Really great post. Informative, and level-headed. I'll toss out there that I stopped playing D&D after 2nd Edition and came back during Next. When I found some forums the first thing I noticed was this raging debate about Warlords. I asked "What's a Warlord?" So my opposition has nothing to do with hating 4e, and nothing to do with martial healing (which I'm fine with). Here's why I loathe the Warlord: 1) The name. For all the usual reasons. (I'll get to the other options in a sec.) 2) The "leader" concept. I am just fundamentally opposed to one class being the leader. Proponents keep saying "He's not really the leader, that's just one of the roles from 4e and it really means 'support'." But I'm not buying it. First of all, descriptions of Warlord abilities are almost all "giving orders" or "inspiring" or "telling what to do". Things like, "Make a suggestion on how to better kill that orc." What? My fighter (you know, the melee combat specialist) of the same level as your Warlord [I]needs to be told how to kill an orc[/I]? And now you're giving advice to the rogue, too? [I]So you're also an expert at sneak attacks[/I]? More evidence that a lot of people think that "leader" means more than combat role: - In arguments about "martial healing" (which, again, I'm fine with and I don't think needs to be justified) the example of Patton screaming at a private is used as an example. Uh-huh. So your character is the general and mine is the private. Gotcha. - In fact all the arguments for this sort of martial healing ("the One True Love who shows up at the dying man's bedside and inspires him to rise up and walk", etc.) rely, some how or another, on influence and interpersonal bonds. And that's what bothers me. An entire class based on the concept of my character looking up to your character. It would be like having a class called "Flirt" whose power derived from every other PC lusting after him/her. Sorry, but no: you don't get to define my character's emotions because of the class you chose. - When asked 'what character from history or fiction is a Warlord' you hear that Aragorn was Warlord, not a Ranger. Conan was a warlord, not a barbarian. King Arthur was a warlord not a fighter. Odysseus was a warlord not an archer. Batman was a warlord not a...whatever the $#@% he is. Etc. See the pattern? [I]The heroes are all warlords[/I]. Who represents the other classes? Sidekicks. Groups do have leaders, of course, and I don't even mind there being mechanics to reinforce the idea. But it shouldn't be restricted to a class. Which is why I'm fine with sub-classes and feats and the like granting leader-like abilities. 3) Other naming: Captain: No. See #2 above. (Likewise for all titles derived from military rank.) Tactician: Non-offensive, but just awful. Besides, name a character from history or fiction who is a tactician? And by that, I mean, if you went up to a stranger on the street and said, "What was Batman?" they would say, "Oh, he was a tactician!" See what I mean? If you accept (at least verbally, even if you don't really believe it) that this class concept isn't actually a leader, there's not really a coherent class concept left. There's a grab-bag of mechanics, sure, but not a class concept that can be described using any terminology that somebody who never played 4e would understand. (I still BARELY get it, and only believe that it adds a useful dimension to combat, and isn't just about nostalgia for OP-ness, because Bawylie attests to it and I think he's pretty sensible.) [/QUOTE]

Verification