Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 7320359" data-attributes="member: 22779">If people have an issue with granting off turn attacks, how do you justify the battle master?&nbsp; Or is it the idea of granting extra attacks?&nbsp; Well, again, the battle master is doing that.&nbsp; How exactly do I give up one of my attacks to grant you an attack?&nbsp; I see what people mean about back to square 1.&nbsp; We have to jump through these exact same hoops every single time we talk about warlords.&nbsp; EVERY single mechanic that we need for a warlord already exists in the game and IS NOT A PROBLEM.&nbsp; Off turn action granting?&nbsp; Check - spells, battle master.Granting bonuses to attacks?&nbsp; Check - Bard, spells, Mastermind Rogue, etc.Non-magical healing?&nbsp; Check - fighters, Healer featGranting bonuses to checks?&nbsp; Check - Cleric, Warlock, Bard, Mastermind Rogue, etc.Granting party bonuses to actions?&nbsp; Check - Ranger allows the party to travel faster, Druid can use Pass Without a Trace to allow entire party to stealth even in armor, etc.On and on.&nbsp; EVERYTHING already exists in the game.&nbsp; We have all the pieces already.&nbsp; Folding them into one class will not change anything since the action economy will ensure that it doesn't become over powered.&nbsp;&nbsp; Which is what makes these conversations so frustrating.&nbsp; Endlessly having to defend points which are already part of the base game.&nbsp; If you have a problem with warlords granting attacks, then why aren't you up in arms about battle masters DOING THE SAME THING? If you have a problem with warlords helping other PC's do their thing, why aren't you up in arms about clerics, rogues and bards DOING THE SAME THING?On and on, around and around we go.&nbsp; Why do we need to justify mechanics that already exist in the game?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 7320359, member: 22779"] If people have an issue with granting off turn attacks, how do you justify the battle master? Or is it the idea of granting extra attacks? Well, again, the battle master is doing that. How exactly do I give up one of my attacks to grant you an attack? I see what people mean about back to square 1. We have to jump through these exact same hoops every single time we talk about warlords. EVERY single mechanic that we need for a warlord already exists in the game and IS NOT A PROBLEM. Off turn action granting? Check - spells, battle master. Granting bonuses to attacks? Check - Bard, spells, Mastermind Rogue, etc. Non-magical healing? Check - fighters, Healer feat Granting bonuses to checks? Check - Cleric, Warlock, Bard, Mastermind Rogue, etc. Granting party bonuses to actions? Check - Ranger allows the party to travel faster, Druid can use Pass Without a Trace to allow entire party to stealth even in armor, etc. On and on. EVERYTHING already exists in the game. We have all the pieces already. Folding them into one class will not change anything since the action economy will ensure that it doesn't become over powered. Which is what makes these conversations so frustrating. Endlessly having to defend points which are already part of the base game. If you have a problem with warlords granting attacks, then why aren't you up in arms about battle masters DOING THE SAME THING? If you have a problem with warlords helping other PC's do their thing, why aren't you up in arms about clerics, rogues and bards DOING THE SAME THING? On and on, around and around we go. Why do we need to justify mechanics that already exist in the game? [/QUOTE]

Verification