Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aldarc" data-source="post: 7042506" data-attributes="member: 5142">Nope, but if that's how you want to misconstrue the warlord, then it's not as if I can tell you otherwise, can I? It's not as if many magi in fiction have much in common apart from being casting spells either. There's not really a fundamental difference between a barbarian and a fighter. Plus, outside of D&D fiction, the cleric is virtually non-existent. And that "wizard" Merlin, much like Gandalf, could be emulated perfectly by playing a druid. Sort of fact of the matter is that D&D fantasy has become its own fantasy fiction apart from most of its source material. Which a bard or battermaster can already do, so your dead horse of an argument is moot. This is why it seems as if people have hypocritical blinders when it comes to the "warlord." They hardly ever apply this same criticism to other classes, only when they see the name "warlord," and then they throw all reason, sense, and, most importantly, fairness out the window. This is where I see the warlord differently. You see the warlord as a coach. I don't. I see the warlord as a point guard, a fellow on-the-court player, a playmaker who can call out plays on the court and helps set-up their fellow team. They help get the ball to the shooting guard or the center. They sacrifice their own offensive shooting for the big assist.</blockquote>