Fold Fighter into Warlord

Seriously.

If, in the Next design team's infinite lack of wisdom, they just really can't find space to have both classes, shoot the fighter in the brainpan, take it's stuff, and give it to the warlord. Tell the warlord to change it's name to Fighter, if you must. Don't care.

The few vaguely interesting things about the fighter can live in the warlord, but the warlord is the one of the two classes that's actually interesting, at all, without being entirely thematically covered by other classes.

So, the warlordfightergonerightthing would have fighting styles, all the proficiencies, etc, and then...some actual options! Stances, some of which boost party cooperation efficacy, some buff or enable in other ways, some just make you deadlier. Then, maneuvers! Action granting! Healing! Damage mitigation that can be used on yourself or an ally! Various other things!
Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome
All of the "fighter-plus" and "gimmick-fighter" classes can be folded into Fighter itself, much like every Priest of [somegod] is wrapped into a single class.
Then fold both into ranger then fold them all into arcane archer.
You can only fold 7 times.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

This illustrates how utterly pointless all of the whinging about which class is the 'real' one and which class gets folded is.

It doesn't matter what the name of the class is.  No, really, it doesn't.  You may think it does, but when it comes right down to it, if you're wanting to play a thing, but don't because you don't like what it's named, then you're hurting your own play experience out of nothing more than spite.

A warlord by any other name would lead as sweet.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition

So wait, if you break the warlord up and give all their features to the fighter so the player is then free to pick some or all of the old warlord features and play some or all of the old warlord as well as all the potential new combinations of stuff, that's the designers being mean to 4e and hurting its feelings.


However if you break the fighter up and give all their features to the warlord so the player is then free to pick some or all of the old fighter features and play some or all of the old fighter as well as all the potential new combinations of stuff, that's the designers doing the right thing?#


Someone should switch to decaf.

What old fighter features? The fighter has no iconic ability that it does better than any other class. That's the point, the fighter is a bad class concept and has no signature.

The point is this entire thread hangs on the weight of the name. It's a pointless exercise and the end result will be exactly the same.

In many ways, I kind of think this is what they're doing. They're giving the fighter an unprecedented number of leader-type powers. The fighter will be able to do warlord type stuff it has never been able to do in previous editions. They just bungled the PR job. Instead of saying "you can't have your class" to the warlord fans, they should have said "your class is now the new fighter".

Frankly, I think the new fighter is going to be awesome. I am very optimistic about how this is going to turn out.
The point is that unlike the fighter the warlord is a robust, solid class concept.

The fighter has never been that, except maybe in 4e and that was accomplished by narrowing down what it meant to be a fighter and giving some added definition to the concept.

The warlord covers out of combat abilities, and the leader of men bit that the older fighters completely faile dto deliver on. Warlord is what the pre-3 fighter should have been. 
This illustrates how utterly pointless all of the whinging about which class is the 'real' one and which class gets folded is.

It doesn't matter what the name of the class is.  No, really, it doesn't.  You may think it does, but when it comes right down to it, if you're wanting to play a thing, but don't because you don't like what it's named, then you're hurting your own play experience out of nothing more than spite.

A warlord by any other name would lead as sweet.



Only, they're not doing that. They're taking shredded bits and pieces of it, scattering it amongst the fighter, bard, and specialties. So, in order to get even a taste of what was possible with a single class in 4e, you have to multiclass fighter/bard and take that specialty, which amounts to a feat tax.

This is all instead of taking it, reinforcing it, putting some actual design into it, and selling it as a bridge between DDN and 4e. Something that is desperately needed. 

We don't know what they're doing. We know that they are considering something. "Concsider" does not mean "do". "Trying out to see" does not mean "changing for good".


And threads like this really only proves that the battle is really over a name. Seriously, that's what it is. Folding the warlord into the fighter is exactly the same thing as folding the fighter into the warlord and the only plausable assumption one can make is that the name is retained.

A warlord by any other name would smell as sweet.


I guess it depends on how pleasant the smell of sweat and blood is.
This illustrates how utterly pointless all of the whinging about which class is the 'real' one and which class gets folded is.

It doesn't matter what the name of the class is.  No, really, it doesn't.  You may think it does, but when it comes right down to it, if you're wanting to play a thing, but don't because you don't like what it's named, then you're hurting your own play experience out of nothing more than spite.

A warlord by any other name would lead as sweet.



Only, they're not doing that. They're taking shredded bits and pieces of it, scattering it amongst the fighter, bard, and specialties. So, in order to get even a taste of what was possible with a single class in 4e, you have to multiclass fighter/bard and take that specialty, which amounts to a feat tax.

This is all instead of taking it, reinforcing it, putting some actual design into it, and selling it as a bridge between DDN and 4e. Something that is desperately needed. 

That's your interpretation, but you're really only speculating.

They've said two things:

A) that the fighter will be getting a variety of Warlord Powers as maneuvers.

B) that martial healing is likely not something that's going to be in the game. The bard may be getting a healing mechanic based on inspiration, but it will ultimately be magical.



So really, what they've said is that you won't be able to play a carbon copy of the 4E Warlord in Next. They never said you won't be able to build an awesome archetypal Warlord character using the Fighter class. The Warlord mechanics they build into the Fighter have the potential to be awesome.

So you may not be able to play a carbon copy of the 4E warlord, but you won't be able to play a 3E Rogue, or a 2E Monk, or a 4E Wizard in Next either.

I think the new Warlord/Fighter has the potential to be really awesome. If it's crap when they release it, I'll be the first to hang my head in disappointment.

Until then though, I don't see the point of being so pessimistic.
So you may not be able to play a carbon copy of the 4E warlord, but you won't be able to play a 3E Rogue, or a 2E Monk, or a 4E Wizard in Next either.



Lets take a Wizard and just remove the Evocation and Conjuration schools of magic from him.


Should be roughly the same as taking away healing from a Warlord, in terms of proportion of abilities being denied. 
We don't know what they're doing. We know that they are consideringsomething. "Concsider" does not mean "do". "Trying out to see" does not mean "changing for good".

And threads like this really only proves that the battle is really over a name. Seriously, that's what it is. Folding the warlord into the fighter is exactly the same thing as folding the fighter into the warlord and the only plausable assumption one can make is that the name is retained.


It's not the name (fighter vs warlord).
It's the concept (swings weapons vs leads allies).

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

A) that the fighter will be getting a variety of Warlord Powers as maneuvers as part of testing



Just because it shows up in a packet, that does not mean that's how they want it to be.  If they give Warlord-y maneuvers to the Fighter for playtesting, that does not necessarily mean that the Warlord will never show up as a class.  They could very easily pull those mechanics again and give them to the Warlord.  The advantage of doing this is that it doesn't require as much development to test something you're not sure will work or not - no determination of a warlord's hit die, armor/weapon profs, other class features, etc.  Just the mechanical core functional pieces of what a warlord would regularly use.  The only things developed are the things to be tested, so that if they don't work, you didn't waste a lot of time on something that's now irrelevant.

Again, the single biggest problem I see with how people approach the playtest is that they take every piece of information from the developers, whether article or packet, as if it were the dev's best attempt at The One True Way.  It's not, and it's not supposed to be.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
This illustrates how utterly pointless all of the whinging about which class is the 'real' one and which class gets folded is.

It doesn't matter what the name of the class is.  No, really, it doesn't.  You may think it does, but when it comes right down to it, if you're wanting to play a thing, but don't because you don't like what it's named, then you're hurting your own play experience out of nothing more than spite.

A warlord by any other name would lead as sweet.



Only, they're not doing that. They're taking shredded bits and pieces of it, scattering it amongst the fighter, bard, and specialties. So, in order to get even a taste of what was possible with a single class in 4e, you have to multiclass fighter/bard and take that specialty, which amounts to a feat tax.

This is all instead of taking it, reinforcing it, putting some actual design into it, and selling it as a bridge between DDN and 4e. Something that is desperately needed. 

That's your interpretation, but you're really only speculating.

They've said two things:

A) that the fighter will be getting a variety of Warlord Powers as maneuvers.

B) that martial healing is likely not something that's going to be in the game. The bard may be getting a healing mechanic based on inspiration, but it will ultimately be magical.



So really, what they've said is that you won't be able to play a carbon copy of the 4E Warlord in Next. They never said you won't be able to build an awesome archetypal Warlord character using the Fighter class. The Warlord mechanics they build into the Fighter have the potential to be awesome.

So you may not be able to play a carbon copy of the 4E warlord, but you won't be able to play a 3E Rogue, or a 2E Monk, or a 4E Wizard in Next either.

I think the new Warlord/Fighter has the potential to be really awesome. If it's crap when they release it, I'll be the first to hang my head in disappointment.

Until then though, I don't see the point of being so pessimistic.


 

It deserves to be its own class as much as the ranger, paladin, and barbarian is the problem. They all have a much better case for being folded into it. It's just arbitrary. Also, the exclusion of martial healing is not acceptable. That is a purely biased decision on the part of the designers. There's no reason for it.

As I said in another thread. 13th Age has managed to do a Warlord and Fighter as separate classes with distinct mechanics and features. DDN has not chosen its path yet. They just said that are toying around with it. I'm saying what is acceptable to me and what is not. All we can do is wait and see what they decide to do. Exclusion is lazy, and against the design goals of DDN. That is my position on it, and that is where my wallet votes.
We don't know what they're doing. We know that they are consideringsomething. "Concsider" does not mean "do". "Trying out to see" does not mean "changing for good".

And threads like this really only proves that the battle is really over a name. Seriously, that's what it is. Folding the warlord into the fighter is exactly the same thing as folding the fighter into the warlord and the only plausable assumption one can make is that the name is retained.


It's not the name (fighter vs warlord).
It's the concept (swings weapons vs leads allies).

Which, so far as we know, is being retained. No, I'm afraid I don't buy that at all.
A) that the fighter will be getting a variety of Warlord Powers as maneuvers as part of testing



Just because it shows up in a packet, that does not mean that's how they want it to be.  If they give Warlord-y maneuvers to the Fighter for playtesting, that does not necessarily mean that the Warlord will never show up as a class.  They could very easily pull those mechanics again and give them to the Warlord.  The advantage of doing this is that it doesn't require as much development to test something you're not sure will work or not - no determination of a warlord's hit die, armor/weapon profs, other class features, etc.  Just the mechanical core functional pieces of what a warlord would regularly use.  The only things developed are the things to be tested, so that if they don't work, you didn't waste a lot of time on something that's now irrelevant.

Again, the single biggest problem I see with how people approach the playtest is that they take every piece of information from the developers, whether article or packet, as if it were the dev's best attempt at The One True Way.  It's not, and it's not supposed to be.



This is why I said I will wait and see what happens. They did something similar with the Rogue, so it's a wait and see. Their position on non magical healing is entirely unacceptable and bias, though.
Going back to the concept of Fighter being too broad of a concept to exist alongside the Barbarian and Ranger, I would be all for combining the Fighter and Warlord into a new class (which I would tentatively call the Soldier) - a sort of tactical fighter, who can be either rank-and-file or leader.

The metagame is not the game.

Pet peeve:  "bias" is a noun, "biased" is the adjective.  "The position is biased" not "The position is bias."
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Pet peeve:  "bias" is a noun, "biased" is the adjective.  "The position is biased" not "The position is bias."



The pains of typing on a phone. I can't read what I say, and it types what I don't want it to say far too often. :P

This site really is not very mobile friendly. I wish it was compatible with Tapatalk. 


So really, what they've said is that you won't be able to play a carbon copy of the 4E Warlord in Next. They never said you won't be able to build an awesome archetypal Warlord character using the Fighter class. The Warlord mechanics they build into the Fighter have the potential to be awesome.


Rodney Thompson said that when they tried to make a Warlord class it played like the Fighter. Please explain how it is possible that they can't make a Warlord play like a Warlord but they can make a Fighter play like a Warlord. And how will it be possible to make a bunch of different and distinct types of Warlords if you have to use up all your customization options in order to make a basic Warlord?
Pet peeve:  "bias" is a noun, "biased" is the adjective.  "The position is biased" not "The position is bias."



The pains of typing on a phone. I can't read what I say, and it types what I don't want it to say far too often. :P

This site really is not very mobile friendly. I wish it was compatible with Tapatalk. 

Fair enough.  It just grates on me because I see it show up with shocking regularity on internet forums.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Pet peeve:  "bias" is a noun, "biased" is the adjective.  "The position is biased" not "The position is bias."



The pains of typing on a phone. I can't read what I say, and it types what I don't want it to say far too often. :P

This site really is not very mobile friendly. I wish it was compatible with Tapatalk. 

Fair enough.  It just grates on me because I see it show up with shocking regularity on internet forums.


 
My keypad apparently prefers "biasd" which it corrects to bias, lol. I always miss the e. 
Going back to the concept of Fighter being too broad of a concept to exist alongside the Barbarian and Ranger, I would be all for combining the Fighter and Warlord into a new class (which I would tentatively call the Soldier) - a sort of tactical fighter, who can be either rank-and-file or leader.


I wouldn't try to specifically merge barbarian, ranger, and warlord into fighter.

I would try to create a fighter class that was highly customizable and when multiclassed with other classes (rogue, wizard, and cleric) that were highly customizable, you could create the concept that you wanted.

A rage tree for fighters.
A preferred enemy tree for fighters.
A tactical leader tree for fighters.

An animal companion option for nature clerics
A healing specialty for clerics   

Various skill trick pathways for rogues.

If these are combined in myriad ways with multiclassing, most of the concepts that people want as separate classes could be created.


It never made sense to me that an ability in 3E could be obtained by class, by feat, by spells, or by magic items.  Some classes could be created without needing an entirely separate class.  
    
Do not feed the bloat.  It makes everything unmanageable.  I want a system that reaches an ideal size and does not change.  It only provides new adventures.  This size is probably 3 core books and 7 extra books.

New settings could be added but they should use the previous material and simply refluff previous classes, monsters, or other extras rather than add completely new materials.  
"Bloat" is in the eye of the beholder.  A fun option to me may be bloat to you - this means we include it, not exclude it.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I would try to create a fighter class that was highly customizable and when multiclassed with other classes (rogue, wizard, and cleric) that were highly customizable, you could create the concept that you wanted.

That would also be my ideal game, but many would argue that it is not what D&D is. That point is debatable, but my concept of mixing Fighter and Warlord to create a Soldier class was meant to exist solely within the current design view of many specific classes.

The metagame is not the game.

"Bloat" is in the eye of the beholder.  A fun option to me may be bloat to you - this means we include it, not exclude it.



Too much inclusion will kill the system.  Some option can be either/or.  These would not be considered bloat.

150 classes to consider at 1st level.  That is bloat.

New spells or feats that make previous releases appear less optimal.  That is bloat.

New skills that expand the list beyond the initial release.  That is bloat.

  
The Fighter should not be folded into the Warlord.


The Fighter should simply cease to exist and allow more niche classes to pick up degrees of fighting as they desire, based on options they choose.



There's a vast world of difference between those two options. In the first you are just doing what the developers are already talking about, but changing the name. With the second, you are acknowledging "Fighter" is an archaic concept that does not fit with today's conceptions of what a class should be.


I would personally be fine with scrapping the Warlord, along with Barbarian, Rogue, Monk, Ranger, etc and having very simplified classes with very broad scope. (For example in my own system, I'm using a 3 class paradigm Martial/External Magic/Internal Magic, with divine blessings being class independent and optional. I plan to make either a hybrid chasis for each potential combination of the big 3, but from there pretty much any concept should be workable)  Later modules could be introduced with specialized classes that replace the superclass. The problem exists with the current design where arbitrarily you have some superclasses (see: Wizard), and then you have some classes that try to be super classes but have part of their schtick broken off into other classes (see: Fighter/Barbarian, or even Monk or Rogue), but then other niche classes (See: Warlord) being folded back into the Superclass arbitrarily despite the existence of other more niche concepts existing as their own class.

For me at least, the lack of consistency is the main source of irritation.  I could tolerate it if we were given just 2 or 3 classes. Or even just the core 4 (though more and more I disagree with the separation of Fighter and Rogue, as that seems to just serve as an excuse to keep the Fighter from contributing out of combat. As any physical skill tends to fall within the Rogue's domain). I could also be okay with having a whole bunch of niche classes that have a limited scope of abilities. The current mish mash though? It is inconsistent, sloppy, and shows a distinct lack of direction. Even if Warlord got its own class, we'd end up going back to the "Fighter's can't have nice things" arguments because the mundane classes would all be much more limited than the caster classes, because of that core inconsistency in how they are being handled. The problem is they aren't folding the Warlord into the Fighter to fix that problem, they're doing it because they don't like the Warlord, otherwise the Barbarian, Monk, and Rogue wouldn't exist either.
We don't know what they're doing. We know that they are consideringsomething. "Concsider" does not mean "do". "Trying out to see" does not mean "changing for good".

And threads like this really only proves that the battle is really over a name. Seriously, that's what it is. Folding the warlord into the fighter is exactly the same thing as folding the fighter into the warlord and the only plausable assumption one can make is that the name is retained.


It's not the name (fighter vs warlord).
It's the concept (swings weapons vs leads allies).

Which, so far as we know, is being retained. No, I'm afraid I don't buy that at all.

If it is retained, and not chopped to pieces in the proccess, then sure.

But it's really not a comfortable fit.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

"Bloat" is in the eye of the beholder.  A fun option to me may be bloat to you - this means we include it, not exclude it.




Also bloat is pretty easy to ignore, I mean if you don't want to use all the books, don't buy all the books.

Either way  I want a warlord now if the fighter will be able to do that fine, but if it can't I will be very sad. 
"Bloat" is in the eye of the beholder.  A fun option to me may be bloat to you - this means we include it, not exclude it.



Too much inclusion will kill the system.  Some option can be either/or.  These would not be considered bloat.

150 classes to consider at 1st level.  That is bloat.

New spells or feats that make previous releases appear less optimal.  That is bloat.

New skills that expand the list beyond the initial release.  That is bloat.

  


150 classes can be too many, but that does not necessarily mean that they're bloat.

Power creep is not bloat, it's power creep, and they're very different.

New skills are only bloat if you believe that only the initial list is important.  Again, subjective.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
"Bloat" is in the eye of the beholder.  A fun option to me may be bloat to you - this means we include it, not exclude it.

Too much inclusion will kill the system.  Some option can be either/or.  These would not be considered bloat.

150 classes to consider at 1st level.  That is bloat.

New spells or feats that make previous releases appear less optimal.  That is bloat.

New skills that expand the list beyond the initial release.  That is bloat.

  

150 classes can be too many, but that does not necessarily mean that they're bloat.

Power creep is not bloat, it's power creep, and they're very different.

New skills are only bloat if you believe that only the initial list is important.  Again, subjective.

Power creap can certainly be bloat.  If option A > option B.  Then option B is bloat.   Doesn't matter which came out first.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

Power creep and bloat can both happen as a result of the same new material, but they're not the same thing and shouldn't be conflated.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Bloat is when you increase the number of options but the new options aren't ever worth taking. Power creep is when new options are better than previous options.

You can have more options without either bloat or power creep if those options are worth taking to build a character a certain way but aren't necessarily more powerful than other choices.
Power creep and bloat can both happen as a result of the same new material, but they're not the same thing and shouldn't be conflated.

Fair enough.

Not conflated, but still correlated.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

Which, so far as we know, is being retained. No, I'm afraid I don't buy that at all.

If it is retained, and not chopped to pieces in the proccess, then sure.

But it's really not a comfortable fit.

You can't really chop a concept to pieces. You can chop mechanics to pieces. A concept is freely applicable to nearly anything. The concept of the warlord is not under fire here, and it never was. Its mechanics are, but only because they're considering (haven't decided, not going) where those mechanics will fall and looking at hard at whether the game is best served by having them in a class or spread across several classes. Or both.

Whether it's comfortable or not is purely a point of personal preference, but they'd be negligent if they weren't willing to evaluate classes in this way. The fact that we're only aware of the warlord being evaluated in this way does not mean that the other classes they've spoken about haven't, and unless they tell us we have no way of knowing.


This illustrates how utterly pointless all of the whinging about which class is the 'real' one and which class gets folded is.

It doesn't matter what the name of the class is.  No, really, it doesn't.  You may think it does, but when it comes right down to it, if you're wanting to play a thing, but don't because you don't like what it's named, then you're hurting your own play experience out of nothing more than spite.

A warlord by any other name would lead as sweet.



This is all true but not necessarily pertinent to the debate at hand. If they were doing what the OP suggested and redesigning the entire fighter class with a plethora of builds, options, and OOC abilities, it could make a great home for the warlord archetype. But WOTC has never said they were doing anything like that; instead, it seems more likely that they're trying to fit the core of the warlord into 4-5 fighter maneuvers (and maybe a specialty to boot).

I would be thrilled to see a fighter class expansive and interesting enough to make a good home for the warlord archetype; I'm just far from convinced that's on the table.

(And for the record, NOT because the devs are bad at their job - they do a pretty great job desiging cool feats and maneuvers. It's more because they're very tied to the idea of a "simple fighter" that only has 4-5 options in combat at level 20.)
We don't know what they're doing. We know that they are consideringsomething. "Concsider" does not mean "do". "Trying out to see" does not mean "changing for good".

And threads like this really only proves that the battle is really over a name. Seriously, that's what it is. Folding the warlord into the fighter is exactly the same thing as folding the fighter into the warlord and the only plausable assumption one can make is that the name is retained.


It's not the name (fighter vs warlord).
It's the concept (swings weapons vs leads allies).

Which, so far as we know, is being retained. No, I'm afraid I don't buy that at all.

If it is retained, and not chopped to pieces in the proccess, then sure.

But it's really not a comfortable fit.



Yeah, I gotta say, unless the developers are miracle workers (and from what we've seen we can safely say no to that) they are not going to be able to cram:


  1. Ally Initiative bonus

  2. Ally attack bonuses on the last enemy attacked

  3. Ally movement

  4. Ally attacks

  5. Temporary hit points

  6. Martial healing

  7. Bonuses on some attacks (action points)

  8. Healing on some attacks (action points)

  9. Increasing allies AC

  10. Target moving provokes opportunity attacks from an ally

  11. Preventing an opportunity attack on an ally

  12. An ally swapping places with an adjacent enemy

  13. Preventing a target from moving if two party members are near it

Into 5 maneuvers at level 1. Please note that I flat out reject having to use my background and/or my specialty to build a Warlord. That stuff is for customization not creating a class that should be in the game at the outset. Now the Warlord in 4E gets 6 of those at 1st level. Please explain how they can make the Fighter get 6 of those at 1st level with a single Maneuver, again without using background and/or specialty. Explain how the Fighter can get all of those or even 6 of them by level 20 using all their maneuver slots.

At best they are going to mangle the Warlord. That's the best we can hope for at this point...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Sign In to post comments