warlords ARE in 5e

Cool! So this is, what, the second class confirmed? I feel like there was a Dwarf Cleric or something like that a little while ago, right?

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
i dont think we need confirmation on wizards, fighters, clerics, and thieves, they will be in there
Kewls.  One of the things I actually like about 4e is the Warlord.  My only concern is all that talky-talk about leadering.  I don't like roles.  The only thing they're good for is breaking and, if that's the case, why have 'em?
Resident Prophet of the OTTer.

Section Six Soldier

Front Door of the House of Trolls

[b]If you're terribly afraid of your character dying, it may be best if you roleplayed something other than an adventurer.[/b]

Leading - as in the act of leading, not the role - is, y'know, kind of integral to the Warlord concept.  That's all I see mentioned there.

Without that?  He'd be a Fighter of some kind, at best.

(Kind of how a Wizard without magic would be a commoner or an expert, at best.)
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
i dont think we need confirmation on wizards, fighters, clerics, and thieves, they will be in there

A) We certainly do need such confirmation. We have no idea how classes will work in this next edition, so for example, we don't know whether they've gone with the idea of splitting up the Wizard into different classes based on school. It's an idea that's been tossed around and has plenty enough merit, so at this point we can't really count on anything.

B) Even if those classes remain, we have no idea if they're called the same thing, so even something that simple is cool to know. Will Fighters still be Fighters or will they be Warriors? Is it going to be a Thief or a Rogue? Is it going to be a Cleric or a Priest? Though, I'm pretty sure I recall us hearing Cleric already, so at least that last one is answered.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
There is no emoticon for what I am feeling right now, oddly.  We seem to have lost the "tin foil hat" one too, or am I just hallucinating that we ever had it?

If there was one thing I would have liked to see dropped, it was the martial healer.  Of course, it's possible they've been rethoguht into a "Leader but NOT healer", but I doubt it.


Oh wait... this one'll do --

"Enjoy your screams, Sarpadia - they will soon be muffled beneath snow and ice."

 

Follow me to No Goblins Allowed

A M:tG/D&D message board with a good community and usable software

 


THE COALITION WAR GAME -Phyrexian Chief Praetor
Round 1: (4-1-2, 1 kill)
Round 2: (16-8-2, 4 kills)
Round 3: (18-9-2, 1 kill)
Round 4: (22-10-0, 2 kills)
Round 5: (56-16-3, 9 kills)
Round 6: (8-7-1)

Last Edited by Ralph on blank, 1920

If there was one thing I would have liked to see dropped, it was the martial healer.

To this I have two answers:

A) The Warlord was never a "healer". Its niche was inspiring allies, taking advantage of the fact that HP is an abstraction and doesn't always necessarily represent physical wounds but also resolve, fatigue, and many other more emotional or psychological things that keep a fighter in the fight. This of the effect as working like a morale bonus. Non-magical morale bonuses existed in earlier editions.

B) You don't like doctors and surgeons? Tongue Out

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
A medic or surgeon doesn't instantly render you good as new ;)


The above being said, I don't think this really dampens the fact that I'm cautiously optimistic for 5e.  I *do* like the concept of a legendary commander, the only problem being that while hit points do represent an abstraction in their number, it's rather jarring to disconnect them as utterly from wounds as morale-based healing can do.

A stirge bites you.  It sucks some blood and then gets hacked away or flies off.  the boss tells you to walk it off, and like that it's as though the stirge hadn't bit you?

*shrug* It seems off and it's probably going to keep seeming off to me.

"Enjoy your screams, Sarpadia - they will soon be muffled beneath snow and ice."

 

Follow me to No Goblins Allowed

A M:tG/D&D message board with a good community and usable software

 


THE COALITION WAR GAME -Phyrexian Chief Praetor
Round 1: (4-1-2, 1 kill)
Round 2: (16-8-2, 4 kills)
Round 3: (18-9-2, 1 kill)
Round 4: (22-10-0, 2 kills)
Round 5: (56-16-3, 9 kills)
Round 6: (8-7-1)

Last Edited by Ralph on blank, 1920

A medic or surgeon doesn't instantly render you good as new ;)


The above being said, I don't think this really dampens the fact that I'm cautiously optimistic for 5e.  I *do* like the concept of a legendary commander, the only problem being that while hit points do represent an abstraction in their number, it's rather jarring to disconnect them as utterly from wounds as morale-based healing can do.

A stirge bites you.  It sucks some blood and then gets hacked away or flies off.  the boss tells you to walk it off, and like that it's as though the stirge hadn't bit you?

That's the point of healing surges: You've still been hurt, you're slightly drained, but you can carry on (your HP are restored, but your surges go down, representing more long-term difficulties)
Leading - as in the act of leading, not the role - is, y'know, kind of integral to the Warlord concept.  That's all I see mentioned there.

Without that?  He'd be a Fighter of some kind, at best.

(Kind of how a Wizard without magic would be a commoner or an expert, at best.)



Anyone can lead.  If that's what it takes to make a class different enough to be its own class, it's probably a class we don't need. 

And there's my concern.  They're not gonna make a Fighter and a Warlord and make them basically the same thing.  So what's the difference?  The repetition of the word in the entry is, obviously, not nearly enough to assume there's gonna be a Leader role (and, therefore likely more roles) but it was enough to get me thinking.  That's all that was - a passing thought. 
Resident Prophet of the OTTer.

Section Six Soldier

Front Door of the House of Trolls

[b]If you're terribly afraid of your character dying, it may be best if you roleplayed something other than an adventurer.[/b]

    Warlord...  Very much a secondary class.  You have to have something to lead after all.  So we can pretty much pencil in almost all of the primary classes at this point.  Any one of them might get dumped, or at least delayed to PH2 or 3, and any of them might be completely unrecognizable.  [Our 5e Warlord might do almost nothing beyond give the others various bonuses.]  But this suggests that 5e will be 4.5ish and you will have a chance to continue to play your favorite class [tho possibly denouncing in future forums what a travesty they have made of the class].
It's also possible that 'warlord' isn't an actual class, but a background/theme that's added to a primary class.
Good to hear. Hoping it carries forward as a martial leader with healing ability. Hit points are an abstract concept anyways thats always caused headaches if you focus too much on them.

As for those opposing roles... that's pretty much the function of a class based game. To determine what your class is good at and how they accomplish it. Otherwise we may as well go classless/point buy.
Good to hear. Hoping it carries forward as a martial leader with healing ability. Hit points are an abstract concept anyways thats always caused headaches if you focus too much on them.

As for those opposing roles... that's pretty much the function of a class based game. To determine what your class is good at and how they accomplish it. Otherwise we may as well go classless/point buy.



That's a good point - and, interestingly enough, I've said multiple times that I'd be ok with D&D going classless (not something I think they've even remotely considered, mind).  For a lot of us, the only fun thing about roles is finding a way to take a character that's supposed to fulfill one and make them fulfill another.  Roles have pretty much always existed in D&D - that's a fact.  I guess I'm just hoping that 5e won't be as blatant about it as 4e was.  Overall, though, it's a minor concern.  I mean, as long as I have the option of detonating roles I guess I'll be fine. 
Resident Prophet of the OTTer.

Section Six Soldier

Front Door of the House of Trolls

[b]If you're terribly afraid of your character dying, it may be best if you roleplayed something other than an adventurer.[/b]

Kewls.  One of the things I actually like about 4e is the Warlord.  My only concern is all that talky-talk about leadering.  I don't like roles.  The only thing they're good for is breaking and, if that's the case, why have 'em?

I'll disagree - a lot. But with a qualifier: In general, I don't like class roles. Most classes, even in 4E pre-Essentials where every class had one assigned primary role, could easily be built to make either of two roles primary and quite a few could go for any of three. Warlords in particular, built just so and with the right party, are above-average strikers.

But build roles (particularly if both primary and secondary role are listed) are great for a brief description of what job the character will perform in combat. That's why roles were invented (or discovered if you prefer, I won't argue), by AD&D players about the time there got to be more than four classes. If your party is missing a role there are consequences, and your party needs to either get the role filled or be prepared to deal with the consequences. Knowing that up front, because you're missing a checkmark in a short list, is useful.

And it helps if roles are formally defined; then various options including classes can be labelled for what roles they are generally better suited for. As guides, not rules - there's no reason a warlord should be barred from taking a few options that are normally for defenders.
"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose
Kewls.  One of the things I actually like about 4e is the Warlord.  My only concern is all that talky-talk about leadering.  I don't like roles.  The only thing they're good for is breaking and, if that's the case, why have 'em?



You say this as if a 1e Fighter didn't have a role.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I'll disagree - a lot. But with a qualifier: In general, I don't like class roles. Most classes, even in 4E pre-Essentials where every class had one assigned primary role, could easily be built to make either of two roles primary and quite a few could go for any of three. Warlords in particular, built just so and with the right party, are above-average strikers.

But build roles (particularly if both primary and secondary role are listed) are great for a brief description of what job the character will perform in combat. That's why roles were invented (or discovered if you prefer, I won't argue), by AD&D players about the time there got to be more than four classes. If your party is missing a role there are consequences, and your party needs to either get the role filled or be prepared to deal with the consequences. Knowing that up front, because you're missing a checkmark in a short list, is useful.

And it helps if roles are formally defined; then various options including classes can be labelled for what roles they are generally better suited for. As guides, not rules - there's no reason a warlord should be barred from taking a few options that are normally for defenders.



Meh, I prefer to come up with a concept and then come up with my own way to make it.  I don't need the game to tell me that if I want to be a leader (in the 4e role style) that classes X and Y are the best choices.  And I certainly don't want that to actually be the case.  It harshes my creativity vibe and it's why I absolutely had to go to Hybrid classes in 4e to have any semblance of fun.  I don't want to have to plug Character A into Slot (role) B and Character B into Slot C, etc.  It's just not my idea of fun.  The main thing is (as I said in a later post) that I just hope 5e isn't as blatant about roles as 4e was.  That's all.

You say this as if a 1e Fighter didn't have a role.



No I don't.  In fact, in a later post I say that D&D has always had roles and that 4e was just more (too) blatant about it.  ;)
Resident Prophet of the OTTer.

Section Six Soldier

Front Door of the House of Trolls

[b]If you're terribly afraid of your character dying, it may be best if you roleplayed something other than an adventurer.[/b]

Yes! This, wardens, and battleminds are 3 4e classes I hope move forward, and 1 of 3 is a nice start.

Heh, guess WotC is showing us martial ain't gonna be pigeonholed again.
The only thing I can hope for is that they don't screw over the ranger
Good to hear. Hoping it carries forward as a martial leader with healing ability. Hit points are an abstract concept anyways thats always caused headaches if you focus too much on them.

As for those opposing roles... that's pretty much the function of a class based game. To determine what your class is good at and how they accomplish it. Otherwise we may as well go classless/point buy.



That's a good point - and, interestingly enough, I've said multiple times that I'd be ok with D&D going classless (not something I think they've even remotely considered, mind).  For a lot of us, the only fun thing about roles is finding a way to take a character that's supposed to fulfill one and make them fulfill another.  Roles have pretty much always existed in D&D - that's a fact.  I guess I'm just hoping that 5e won't be as blatant about it as 4e was.  Overall, though, it's a minor concern.  I mean, as long as I have the option of detonating roles I guess I'll be fine. 



Also, most classes should have several roles. The warlord could be a fighter build, along with the slayer, and the defender (knight is a pretty baggage heavy term). Wizards might be evokers (strikers), illusionists/enchanters (controllers), or abjurerers (buff oriented defenders). Sorcerers might be elementalists (damage), summoners (control), etc.

Heck, they can have generalists as well. The paragon (martial generalist... factotum was a terrible name), bard (arcane generalists), ranger (primal generalist), etc. Throw in the equivalent of themes (which work better for multiclassing IMO than the current 4E version), and you can have a small number of parent classes, while retaining role focus and allowing diversity within the parent class.

So long as people can usually get a decent match with concept and what/how the accomplish it, roles really arent limiting, assuming you're willing to accept that you cant do everything, and do it as well as someone else. Largely the point of a class game anyways.
See, zombie babies, I always liked that 4e didn't lie to the player. They tried to tell the truth as much as possible.

3e lied and his things from the players all the time.
Also, most classes should have several roles. The warlord could be a fighter build, along with the slayer, and the defender (knight is a pretty baggage heavy term). Wizards might be evokers (strikers), illusionists/enchanters (controllers), or abjurerers (buff oriented defenders). Sorcerers might be elementalists (damage), summoners (control), etc.

Heck, they can have generalists as well. The paragon (martial generalist... factotum was a terrible name), bard (arcane generalists), ranger (primal generalist), etc. Throw in the equivalent of themes (which work better for multiclassing IMO than the current 4E version), and you can have a small number of parent classes, while retaining role focus and allowing diversity within the parent class.

So long as people can usually get a decent match with concept and what/how the accomplish it, roles really arent limiting, assuming you're willing to accept that you cant do everything, and do it as well as someone else. Largely the point of a class game anyways.



Right.  I'm totally ok with roles so long as they don't limit me.  That's my only real concern and, even then, it's not a major one.

I'd also like the ability to mix and match classes to find ways to fill roles differently, but that's probably a different discussion. 

Anyhoo, I think the most important thing we can take from this is that we're both happy the Warlord will be in 5e. 
Resident Prophet of the OTTer.

Section Six Soldier

Front Door of the House of Trolls

[b]If you're terribly afraid of your character dying, it may be best if you roleplayed something other than an adventurer.[/b]

Warlords are the reason I can't go back to playing 3e.  Well, one of the reasons.  So having them in 5E just made it much more desirable.
See, zombie babies, I always liked that 4e didn't lie to the player. They tried to tell the truth as much as possible. 3e lied and his things from the players all the time.



I think it 'lied' just as much as 3.5 did, to be honest.  My Hybrid WizLord agrees.  See, she was a better striker than any striker in the party.  ;)
Resident Prophet of the OTTer.

Section Six Soldier

Front Door of the House of Trolls

[b]If you're terribly afraid of your character dying, it may be best if you roleplayed something other than an adventurer.[/b]

It might help, in terms of pleasing both sies, to include roles, but phrase them as recommendations, rather than facts.

Rather than "A Fighter is a defender" or "The Knight Build is a defender" you could have "The Knight build provides many options for defending your allies, but is less potent at dealing damage than some other Fighter builds."
See, zombie babies, I always liked that 4e didn't lie to the player. They tried to tell the truth as much as possible. 3e lied and his things from the players all the time.



I think it 'lied' just as much as 3.5 did, to be honest.  My Hybrid WizLord agrees.  See, she was a better striker than any striker in the party.  ;)


I have wanted to play one of those for a while.  Spoiled richkid noble brat who can't be arsed to help out and make attack rolls. 
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Warlords are the reason I can't go back to playing 3e.



According to WotC they are in 3e under the name Marshal (Minatures handbook). It is not a class that appealled to me much there, though still much better than any 4e class for my preferences.

I don't mind them being in 5e so long as they are either optional, not able to heal the way they did in 4e.
I do not like easy in-combat healing.
It devalues healers, and does not match any type of fantasy I have read.


Warlords are the reason I can't go back to playing 3e.



According to WotC they are in 3e under the name Marshal (Minatures handbook). It is not a class that appealled to me much there, though still much better than any 4e class for my preferences.

I found the Marshal was a bit lackluster. Before 4e came out, it seemed really cool. But after seeing the Warlord, the Marshal is just a different, and worse, way to do the same thing, IMO.

I don't mind them being in 5e so long as they are either optional,


All classes are always optional. You just tell your group that they can't play them.

Some of them used to be very hard to do without, but the 3.x and 4e design philosophy tried to change that. Hopefully that "no class should be irreplaceable" philosophy will carry on in 5th

not able to heal the way they did in 4e.
I do not like easy in-combat healing.
It devalues healers, and does not match any type of fantasy I have read.



Out of curiosity, does this apply to all in-combat healing, ie. clerics, bards, etc. or is it just warlords?



Warlords are the reason I can't go back to playing 3e.



According to WotC they are in 3e under the name Marshal (Minatures handbook). It is not a class that appealled to me much there, though still much better than any 4e class for my preferences.

I don't mind them being in 5e so long as they are either optional, not able to heal the way they did in 4e.
I do not like easy in-combat healing.
It devalues healers, and does not match any type of fantasy I have read.




How is what clerics do not easy in-combat healing, exactly?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I don't mind them being in 5e so long as they are either optional, not able to heal the way they did in 4e.
I do not like easy in-combat healing.
It devalues healers, and does not match any type of fantasy I have read.

You've never seen any scenes were a hero is getting their ass kicked and then somebody else says something to inspire them and then they get up and keep on fighting?

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
It might help, in terms of pleasing both sies, to include roles, but phrase them as recommendations, rather than facts.

Rather than "A Fighter is a defender" or "The Knight Build is a defender" you could have "The Knight build provides many options for defending your allies, but is less potent at dealing damage than some other Fighter builds."




It could work, but I think that the best way is to still mantain the same concept of 4e roles, but to insist on reflavouring classes and/or using a different class if the concept does not fit.
If you want an archer Fighter, the Ranger is probably the best choice, if you want a damage focused Paladin, go for the Avenger. Focused classes are a boon to the design and help to avoid "trap options" (or outright "Lie Options"... The Fighter is the best melee fighter? Yeah right, tell it to the cleric/druid).

Personally, I think that 4e fighter is really more versatile than 3.5 fighter. At least 4e fighter can do something good (defend) and can easily variate from that. 3.5 fighter is easely outclassed in his area of competence and to remain relevant a bit longer, you have to optimize in really specific manners that renders all the fighters/melee-class the same fighter/melee-class (yes, I said that, 3.5 classes feel all identical to me! ).
I don't mind them being in 5e so long as they are either optional, not able to heal the way they did in 4e.
I do not like easy in-combat healing.
It devalues healers, and does not match any type of fantasy I have read.

You've never seen any scenes were a hero is getting their ass kicked and then somebody else says something to inspire them and then they get up and keep on fighting?



Mal in Out of Gas. Though there was nobody there to inspire him, he's just so determined that even a bullet in the gut won't stop him from putting that gorram catalyzer into the compression coil...
Wishlist: -Alternate ability bonuses for pre-PHB3 races -Lots more superior implements or an official customization rule -Monk multiclass feat that grants Unarmed Combatant
A medic or surgeon doesn't instantly render you good as new ;)


To be fair "You spend the next week recovering from that broken leg, you can skip the next three sessions" makes for absolutely horrendous gameplay.


the only problem being that while hit points do represent an abstraction in their number, it's rather jarring to disconnect them as utterly from wounds as morale-based healing can do.

A stirge bites you.  It sucks some blood and then gets hacked away or flies off.  the boss tells you to walk it off, and like that it's as though the stirge hadn't bit you?


I dunno, I think it makes sense. Like, I have friends who will flip their [Debutantes avert your eyes] just thinking about needles, whereas people will inform me that I'm leaking blood at an alarming rate, and my response will be either "Really? Huh, when did that happen?" or "Yeah, that happens to me sometimes, sorry."

So yeah, mindset and such can play a pretty decent difference in physical well being.

Zammm = Batman.

It's my sig in a box
58280208 wrote:
Everything is better when you read it in Bane's voice.
192334281 wrote:
Your human antics and desire to continue living have moved me. Just kidding. You cannot move me physically or emotionally. Wall humor.
57092228 wrote:
Copy effects work like a photocopy machine: you get a copy of the 'naked' card, NOT of what's on it.
56995928 wrote:
Funny story: InQuest Magazine (I think it was InQuest) had an oversized Chaos Orb which I totally rooked someone into allowing into a (non-sanctioned) game. I had a proxy card that was a Mountain with "Chaos Orb" written on it. When I played it, my opponent cried foul: Him: "WTF? a Proxy? no-one said anything about Proxies. Do you even own an actual Chaos Orb?" Me: "Yes, but I thought it would be better to use a Proxy." Him: "No way. If you're going to put a Chaos Orb in your deck you have to use your actual Chaos Orb." Me: "*Sigh*. Okay." I pulled out this huge Chaos Orb and placed it on the table. He tried to cry foul again but everyone else said he insisted I use my actual Chaos Orb and that was my actual Chaos Orb. I used it, flipped it and wiped most of his board. Unsurprisingly, that only worked once and only because everyone present thought it was hilarious.
My DM on Battleminds:
no, see i can kill defenders, but 8 consecutive crits on a battlemind, eh walk it off.
144543765 wrote:
195392035 wrote:
Hi guys! So, I'm a sort of returning player to Magic. I say sort of because as a child I had two main TCG's I liked. Yu-Gi-Oh, and Pokemon. Some of my friends branched off in to Magic, and I bought two pre-made decks just to kind of fit in. Like I said, Yu-Gi-Oh and Pokemon were what I really knew how to play. I have a extensive knowledge of deck building in those two TCG's. However, as far as Magic is concerned, I only ever used those two pre made decks. I know how the game is played, and I know general things, but now I want to get in the game for real. I want to begin playing it as a regular. My question is, are all cards ever released from the time of the inception of this game until present day fair game in a deck? Or are there special rules? Are some cards forbidden or restricted? Thanks guys, and I will gladly accept ANY help lol.
I have the same problem with women.
117639611 wrote:
198869283 wrote:
Oh I have a standing rule. If someone plays a Planeswalker I concede the game. I refuse to play with or against people who play Planeswalkers. They really did ruin the game.
A turn two Tibalt win?! Wicked... Betcha don't see that everyday.

The Pony Co. 

Is this my new ego sig? Yes it is, other Barry
57461258 wrote:
And that's why you should never, ever call RP Jesus on being a troll, because then everyone else playing along gets outed, too, and the thread goes back to being boring.
57461258 wrote:
See, this is why RPJesus should be in charge of the storyline. The novel line would never have been cancelled if he had been running the show. Specifically the Slobad and Geth's Head talkshow he just described.
57461258 wrote:
Not only was that an obligatory joke, it was an on-topic post that still managed to be off-topic due to thread derailment. RP Jesus does it again folks.
92481331 wrote:
I think I'm gonna' start praying to Jesus... That's right, RPJesus, I'm gonna' be praying to you, right now. O' Jesus Please continue to make my time here on the forums fun and cause me to chuckle. Amen.
92481331 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
It was wonderful. Us Johnnies had a field day. That Timmy with the Grizzly bears would actually have to think about swinging into your Mogg Fanatic, giving you time to set up your silly combo. Nowadays it's all DERPSWING! with thier blue jeans and their MP3 players and their EM EM OH AR PEE JEES and their "Dewmocracy" and their children's card games and their Jersey Shores and their Tattooed Tenaged Vampire Hunters from Beverly Hills
Seriously, that was amazing. I laughed my *ss off. Made my day, and I just woke up.
[quote=ArtVenn You're still one of my favorite people... just sayin'.[/quote]
56756068 wrote:
56786788 wrote:
.....would it be a bit blasphemous if I said, "PRAYSE RPJAYSUS!" like an Evangelical preacher?
Perhaps, but who doesn't like to blaspheme every now and again? Especially when Mr. RPJesus is completely right.
56756068 wrote:
I don't say this often, but ... LOL
57526128 wrote:
You... You... Evil something... I actualy made the damn char once I saw the poster... Now you made me see it again and I gained resolve to put it into my campaign. Shell be high standing oficial of Cyrix order. Uterly mad and only slightly evil. And it'll be bad. Evil even. And ill blame you and Lizard for it :P.
57042968 wrote:
111809331 wrote:
I'm trying to work out if you're being sarcastic here. ...
Am going to stop you right there... it's RPJesus... he's always sarcastic
58335208 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
112114441 wrote:
we can only hope it gets the jace treatment...it could have at least been legendary
So that even the decks that don't run it run it to deal with it? Isn't that like the definition of format warping?
I lol'd.
56287226 wrote:
98088088 wrote:
Uktabi Orangutan What the heck's going on with those monkeys?
The most common answer is that they are what RPJesus would call "[Debutantes avert your eyes]ing."
56965458 wrote:
Show
57461258 wrote:
116498949 wrote:
I’ve removed content from this thread because off-topic discussions are a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_... Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively. If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
...Am I the only one that thinks this is reaching the point of downright Kafkaesque insanity?
I condone the use of the word Kafkaesque. However, I'm presentely ambivalent. I mean, that can't be serious, right? We're April 1st, right? They didn't mod RPJesus for off-topic discussion when the WHOLE THREAD IS OFF-TOPIC, right? Right.
57545908 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
Save or die. If you disagree with this, you're wrong (Not because of any points or arguements that have been made, but I just rolled a d20 for you and got a 1, so you lose).
58397368 wrote:
58222628 wrote:
This just won the argument, AFAIC.
That's just awesome.
57471038 wrote:
57718868 wrote:
HOW DID I NOT KNOW ABOUT THE BEAR PRODUCING WORDS OF WILDING?! WHAT IS WRONG WITH ME?!
That's what RPJesus tends to do. That's why I don't think he's a real person, but some Magic Card Archive Server sort of machine, that is programmed to react to other posters' comments with obscure cards that do in fact exist, but somehow missed by even the most experienced Magic players. And then come up with strange combos with said cards. All of that is impossible for a normal human to do given the amount of time he does it and how often he does it. He/It got me with Light of Sanction, which prompted me to go to RQ&A to try and find if it was even possible to do combat damage to a creature I control (in light that Mark of Asylum exists).
71235715 wrote:
+10
100176878 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
57078538 wrote:
heaven or hell.
Round 1. Lets rock.
GG quotes! RPJesus just made this thread win!
56906968 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
143359585 wrote:
Blue players get all the overpowerered cards like JTMS. I think it's time that wizards gave something to people who remember what magic is really about: creatures.
Initially yes, Wizards was married to blue. However, about a decade ago they had a nasty divorce, and a few years after that they began courting the attention of Green. Then in Worldwake they had a nasty affair with their ex, but as of Innistrad, things seem to have gotten back on track, and Wizards has even proposed.
You are my favorite. Yes you. And moments like this make it so. Thank you RPJesus for just being you.
On what flavor text fits me:
57307308 wrote:
Surely RPJesus gets Niv-Mizzet, Dracogenius?
56874518 wrote:
First: I STILL can't take you seriously with that avatar. And I can take RPJesus seriously, so that's saying something.
121689989 wrote:
I'd offer you a cookie for making me laugh but it has an Upkeep Cost that has been known to cause people to quit eating.
56267956 wrote:
I <3 you loads
57400888 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
"AINT NO LAWS IN THE SKY MOTHER****." - Agrus Kos, Wojek Veteran
10/10. Amazing.


Mal in Out of Gas. Though there was nobody there to inspire him, he's just so determined that even a bullet in the gut won't stop him from putting that gorram catalyzer into the compression coil...



Don't forget Mal in War Stories were he kept Wash from breaking WHILE being tortured.



Mal in Out of Gas. Though there was nobody there to inspire him, he's just so determined that even a bullet in the gut won't stop him from putting that gorram catalyzer into the compression coil...



Don't forget Mal in War Stories were he kept Wash from breaking WHILE being tortured.




How could I forget that? One of my favorite scenes in any medium, of all time.

OF ALL TIME. 
Wishlist: -Alternate ability bonuses for pre-PHB3 races -Lots more superior implements or an official customization rule -Monk multiclass feat that grants Unarmed Combatant
According to WotC {Warlords} are in 3e under the name Marshal (Minatures handbook). It is not a class that appealled to me much there, though still much better than any 4e class for my preferences.

I don't mind them being in 5e so long as they are either optional, not able to heal the way they did in 4e.

Well, they are optional in the sense that you as a player don't have to play one and you as a DM can pre-announce they aren't allowed in your homebrewed campaign. I'll guarantee that much.
I do not like easy in-combat healing.

Cure Light Wounds for the win...dow! Out it goes!
It devalues healers, and does not match any type of fantasy I have read.

Easy in-combat healing is what leader classes have been all about since the OD&D cleric.

As for the Warlord not matching any type of fantasy you have read, just think of any instance where anyone is about to die (possibly has already been knocked unconscious) and reaches into himself to find a last bit of resolution, or hears a plea for help, or hears a sergeant say "Hey pantywaist, finish that guy off and come over here!" - and gets up carries on. It happens, for example, only four to ten times in the final fight scene of any action movie.

"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose
I don't mind them being in 5e so long as they are either optional, not able to heal the way they did in 4e.
I do not like easy in-combat healing.
It devalues healers, and does not match any type of fantasy I have read.

You've never seen any scenes were a hero is getting their ass kicked and then somebody else says something to inspire them and then they get up and keep on fighting?



Mal in Out of Gas. Though there was nobody there to inspire him, he's just so determined that even a bullet in the gut won't stop him from putting that gorram catalyzer into the compression coil...



You may want to rewatch the episode,  the first thing he did was shoot himself in the heart with Adrenaline.

We may also want to avoid referencing movies as examples,  generally speaking one of two things happens in a movie...

1.  Even at point-blank range,  the weapon only strikes the hero in a non-critical location.  Such as Mal in Out of Gas,  where at point blank range he gets hit in the abdomen instead of the chest or head.

2.  The injury doesn't actually reflect what just happened.  Countless movies have the hero taking multiple hits to the head with some heavy object,  yet they never suffer a concussion.       

TVTropes.com is filled with articles on the topic of how TV/Movie heroes never actually get injured, or if they do,  the injury is treated extremely inaccurately.

(Case in point,  Sherpherd Book's injury when Simon and River were kidnapped.  A shoulder wound is generally not a fatal injury until infection sets in.  There are no organs where he was shot,  nor IIRC are there any arteries or major vessels.)   

We may also want to avoid referencing movies as examples,  generally speaking one of two things happens in a movie...

1.  Even at point-blank range,  the weapon only strikes the hero in a non-critical location.  Such as Mal in Out of Gas,  where at point blank range he gets hit in the abdomen instead of the chest or head.

2.  The injury doesn't actually reflect what just happened.  Countless movies have the hero taking multiple hits to the head with some heavy object,  yet they never suffer a concussion.       

TVTropes.com is filled with articles on the topic of how TV/Movie heroes never actually get injured, or if they do,  the injury is treated extremely inaccurately. 


Is there some particular reason why D&D, a fantasy roleplaying game, should strive to be more realistic (apart from the monsters, magic, gods, etc.) than movies are?

We may also want to avoid referencing movies as examples,  generally speaking one of two things happens in a movie...

1.  Even at point-blank range,  the weapon only strikes the hero in a non-critical location.  Such as Mal in Out of Gas,  where at point blank range he gets hit in the abdomen instead of the chest or head.

2.  The injury doesn't actually reflect what just happened.  Countless movies have the hero taking multiple hits to the head with some heavy object,  yet they never suffer a concussion.       

TVTropes.com is filled with articles on the topic of how TV/Movie heroes never actually get injured, or if they do,  the injury is treated extremely inaccurately. 


Is there some particular reason why D&D, a fantasy roleplaying game, should strive to be more realistic (apart from the monsters, magic, gods, etc.) than movies are?



Do you mean other than the fact that a substantial portion of the game is devoted to ways of either avoiding major injuries or healing major injuries?  Such as limbs falling off,  debilitating and fatal diseases and poisons?  Things that never actually happen to the hero in a movie.

Do you mean other than the fact that a substantial portion of the game is devoted to ways of either avoiding major injuries or healing major injuries?  Such as limbs falling off,  debilitating and fatal diseases and poisons?  Things that never actually happen to the hero in a movie.


Neither 3.x nor 4e have any way for limbs to end up falling off.

Debilitating and fatal (surprisingly rapidly) diseases and poisons do happen to the hero in movies, they're just inevitably cured. 
Sign In to post comments