Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 9161589" data-attributes="member: 996">Like I said, understandable to expect permission before receiving a spell with a serious drawback. (But, the wizard could still lay it on you, and (b) party conflict, yet you have no objection to the wizard existing.)There's no drawback to an action grant, tho, and they generally take a free action on your part, so they're voluntary.&nbsp;...&nbsp; and, remember, that's focusing on one kinda out-there build in the prior edition, with 7 builds that don't have the issue.So old-school henchmen and hirelings are right out?&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />&nbsp; (I'll grant, it's not very heroic to hire mercs or conjure up minions and send them forth to die for you.&nbsp; But, y'know, it's nothing new.)Interestingly, genre often does contain secondary characters who are valued by the heroes and/or contribute something important (perhaps only once at the culmination of a quest or something), but are not capable in combat, often needing to be protected.&nbsp; Though it clearly wasn't intended - the Warlord was presented as a front-line warrior, and it's fluff text &amp; exploit names are generally in line with that - the &quot;lazylord&quot; that fans cobbled together from a few tactical exploits and a perverse willingness to dump STR for INT on a melee character, could readily be used to model such characters, while still contributing, mechanically. It helped that 4e did separate fluff &amp; crunch and let you mod the former.&quot;all multiplier, no force&quot; was a joke back then, yeah ... for leaders, in general, even.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 9161589, member: 996"] Like I said, understandable to expect permission before receiving a spell with a serious drawback. (But, the wizard could still lay it on you, and (b) party conflict, yet you have no objection to the wizard [I]existing[/I].) There's no drawback to an action grant, tho, and they generally take a free action on your part, so they're voluntary. ... and, remember, that's focusing on one kinda out-there build in the prior edition, with 7 builds that don't have the issue. So old-school henchmen and hirelings are right out? ;) (I'll grant, it's not very heroic to hire mercs or conjure up minions and send them forth to die for you. But, y'know, it's nothing new.) Interestingly, genre often [I]does [/I]contain secondary characters who are valued by the heroes and/or contribute something important (perhaps only once at the culmination of a quest or something), but are not capable in combat, often needing to be protected. Though it clearly wasn't intended - the Warlord was presented as a front-line warrior, and it's fluff text & exploit names are generally in line with that - the "lazylord" that fans cobbled together from a few tactical exploits and a perverse willingness to dump STR for INT on a melee character, could readily be used to model such characters, [I]while still contributing, mechanically. [/I]It helped that 4e did separate fluff & crunch and let you mod the former. "all multiplier, no force" was a joke back then, yeah ... for leaders, in general, even. [/QUOTE]

Verification