The Tactician - A Possible Replacement for Warlord

I feel like the Warlord is probably not the best of names for a class that is meant to be a non-magical tactical leader. Probably the Warlord and Bard could be mixed together as styles of a single class. So I decided to consider how one could distill what it is those classes do that is unique into a new class that does it most purely for DDN.

I know this isn't perfect and needs a LOT of work, but... I think I at least show that this concept is really much more wide and has many more applications than the narrow definitions people were arguing over.

The Tactician

Ability Score Adjustment: +1 to your Charisma, Strength or Intelligence Score.
Starting Hit Points: 8 + your Constitution modifier
Armor and Shield Proficiencies: Light armor, medium armor and shields.
Weapon Proficiencies: All simple and martial weapons.


Weapon Attack:
Level 1-3: +0
Level 4-8: +1
Level 9-13: +2
Level 14-18: +3
Level 19-20: +4


Class Features:
Level 1 Command Method: Choose one of the following Command Methods for your character to use.
Plan the Assault: You must spend an extended rest with the party. During that time you discusses strategy with his companions. Until the next extended rest, the party gains a bonus to initiative equal to your Intelligence bonus and a bonus to Saving Throws equal to your Charisma modifiers so long as they can still hear you.


Inspire the Troops: Your words cause an ally's resolve to strengthen spurring them onward through the pain. As a standard action, you may grant an ally a number of temporary hit points equal to your Charisma modifier. If you have Martial Weapon Dice, these may be expended to grant additional temporary hitpoints to the ally (an extra d6 plus charisma modifier hitpoints per a die spent). You may choose to target a number of allies within 20' equal to your Intelligence bonus each turn. The temporary hit points last until the end of the battle.


Lead from the Front: You gain a bonus to armor class equal to your Intelligence modifier and a bonus to damage equal to your Charisma so long as you have an ally within 20'. When you make a successful attack against an opponent, you may choose an ally within sight of your target who may make a 5' shift and then make an attack of opportunity against your target.


Lead from the Rear: As a standard action, you may choose any ally. That ally gains a bonus to attack equal to your Intelligence bonus and a bonus to damage equal to your Charisma bonus. In addition, if you have Martial Weapon Die, you may grant them to the target for the target to expend them as though they were her own until the beginning of her next turn.


Close Formation: As a standard action, you may grant all allies within 30' a bonus to armor class equal to your Charisma modifier and a bonus to saving throws equal to your Intelligence modifier. These bonuses last so long as the allies remain within 30' of you.


Commanding Presence: As a standard action, you may choose an enemy. You make a Charisma plus Intelligence check against the enemy's Wisdom modifier. If the check is successful, whether out of fear or admiration, the enemy may not attack you or your allies until the end of your next turn unless attacked. The enemy may, however, move as it wishes. This ability may be used to either defuse a hostile situation and turn it peaceful or simply cause an single enemy to have a moment of doubt during the battle, depending on the situation. If you have Martial Weapon Dice, these dice may be expended to target more than a single enemy during the turn per a die spent, but a seperate roll must be made for each target.


Levels 1, 2, 4, 8 and 10 Tactics: Choose one Tactic to add to your character at each of these levels.
Changing Ranks - During your turn as a free action, you may select an ally within 5' of yourself. You and the ally immediately switch places on the battlefield. Neither you nor the ally provoke attack of opportunities during this manuever.


Combination Attack - When you make an attack of opportunity, a number of allies equal to your intelligence modifier within melee range of your target may also make an attack of opportunity.


Commander's Strike - As a Standard action, you may allow an ally within 50' to make an attack of opportunity. If you have martial weapon dice, you may expend one to give one to the targeted ally.


Confusing Formation - If you have a martial weapon die, once per a round you may expend a die as a reaction to an enemy taking an action against a friendly target to change the target of an enemy's action to another target within 5' of the enemy's original target.


Directing the Assault - As a standard action, you may grant ally allies within 20' advantage on their next attack roll until the beginning of your next turn.


Disperse - As a standard action, you and all allies within 50' may immediately take a 5' shift and make stealth rolls with a bonus equal to your Intelligence modifier.


Fight Through It - As a Standard action, you may choose a number of allies within earshot equal to your Intelligence modifier currently affected by an ongoing condition. They may make immediate saving throws to overcome the condition. The allies gain a bonus to their saving throws equal to your charisma modifier.


Lead the Charge - Before you charge towards an enemy, you may choose any ally within 20' who may also charge the same target.


Lower Guard - After you make a successful strike against an enemy, that enemy receives a penalty to AC equal to your Intelligence modifier. In addition, any further attacks against the target until the beginning of your next turn gain a bonus to damage equal to your Charisma modifier.


Manuever into Position - As a standard action, you may choose an ally within 50' and allow the ally to immediately make a move action.


Motivate the Troops - During a short rest, you may increase the maximum hit points of you and your allies by an amount equal to your charisma modifier per a hit dice. This bonus lasts until the next time you or the ally takes a long rest.


Provoke - As a standard action, make a Charisma check against a target within line of sight's wisdom. If successful, the target must immediately attempt a charge towards you. You gain a bonus to your AC and saving throws equal to your Intelligence modifier.


Spur Onward - As a standard action, you may grant an ally within 50' gains a bonus to their move rate equal to 5' multiplied by your charisma modifier until the beginning of your next turn.


Strategic Warning - When you may take an opportunity attack, you may instead choose to increase the armor class and saving throw of any ally by an amount equal to your Intelligence modifier.


Take Cover - You and all allies within 30' gain damage resistance equal to your Intelligence modifier until the beginning of your next turn.


Level 3: Combat Expertise (same as all classes)
Martial Weapon Dice:
Level 1-2: None
Level 3-4: 1d6
Level 5-6: 2d6
Level 7-8: 3d6
Level 9-10: 4d6
Level 11+: 5d6


Martial Weapon Damage:
Level 1-10: None
Level 11-13: +5
Level 14-16: +10
Level 17-19: +15
Level 20: +20


Level 11, 14, 17 and 20 Stroke of Luck - Due to your preplanning and inspiration, luck seems to be on your side and a critical moment that would otherwise have been a devastating failure turns into a success.
Once per a day, the Tactician may use a Stroke of Luck as a reaction to yourself or any ally failing an attack roll, saving throw or skill roll. Once you use this ability, the person who made that roll may reroll the roll-- this time adding the Tactician's combined Intelligence and Charisma bonuses to the roll. You may not use this ability again until you take a long rest.
At level 14, 17 and 20, you gain an additional use of Stroke of Luck, however you may only use one as a reaction to a roll made by either you or an ally.



Kits:
Aristocrat
Born into nobility, your life has been spent learning how to rule. You have taken battle training as sport, but always expected to be surrounded by your best guards. Unfortunately, things haven't quite worked out for you as expected.
Background: Noble
Specialty: Swashbuckler
Command Method: Inspire the Troops
Tactics: Directing the Assault (1st level), Fight Through It (2nd level), Provoke (4th level), Commander's Strike (8th level), Motivate the Troops (10th level)
Equipment: Studded leather, long sword, light crossbow, 10 bolts, adventurer's kit, and 75 gp.



Collaberator
You were an orphan of war, growing up around experienced troops who knew what they did best. They did their best to keep you safe and you did what you could to help them-- often merely carrying around their equipment. Having seen your benefactors face off against many foes, you have experiences and stories to draw upon that others your age do not. This gives you a keen insight when facing various foes and you can help your allies lay traps and find weaknesses that they might otherwise have to discover on their own.
Background: Thug
Specialty: Ambusher
Command Method: Plan the Assault
Tactics: Lower Guard (1st level), Disperse (2nd level), Provoke (4th level), Combination Attack (8th level), Confusing Formation (10th level)
Equipment: Studded leather, warhammer, heavy crossbow, 10 bolts, adventurer's kit, and 50 gp.



Diplomat
The battles you were best prepared for were those of the court. The foes you expected to face were rivals from other noble houses. Unfortunately, traveling from town to town, from castle to castle can be quite dangerous and you have had to find a way to make yourself useful on the field of battle as well. Though you cannot be expected to be found on the frontlines, you do your best to distract the enemies and keep the morale of your companions high.
Background: Charlatan
Specialty: Hedge Magician
Command Method: Commanding Presence
Tactics: Motivate the Troops (1st level), Stratetic Warning (2nd level), Spur Onward (4th level), Fight Through It (8th level), Directing the Assault (10th level)
Equipment: Leather armor, short sword, light crossbow, 10 arrows, adventurer's kit, and 95 gp.



Officer
Unlike most soldiers entering the army, your family's wealth afforded you a proper education on the ways of war. Your fellow soldiers might be quick to accuse you of weakness and cowardness, it is up to you to earn their respect and show the value of the extra training you received to turn the tide of battle.
Background: Soldier
Specialty: Defender
Command Method: Lead from the Front
Tactics: Commander's Strike (1st level), Lead the Charge (2nd level), Combination Attack (4th level), Changing Ranks (8th level), Spur Onward (10th level)
Equipment: Studded leather, long spear, long bow, 10 arrows, adventurer's kit, and 60 gp.



Patron
The world is dangerous and though you would be happiest to spend your days in a workshop, you find the reasons to head off on adventures too numerous to ignore. You have gathered around you a cadre of adventurers, or perhaps sought a company out on your own. Although there is a chance your companions see you as nothing more than a way to make some extra money, or even a burden on them as you inevitably find your way into danger, you do your best to contribute to the group in every way you can. Even if is merely to do your best to keep their morale high and look for a way for everyone to escape from the battle safely.
Background: Artisan
Specialty: Mystical Healer
Command Method: Close Formation
Tactics: Take Cover (1st level), Manuever Into Position (2nd level), Fight Through It (4th level), Lower Guard (8th level), Disperse (10th level)
Equipment: Leather armor, long spear, light crossbow, 10 bolts, adventurer's kit, and 100 gp.



Strategist
You have been trained to see the pulsing tide of war in a way ordinary soldiers are simply too close to understand. You have read all the great works of the finest generals in the world and know how to apply their techniques to every situation you encounter. Unfortunately, you have a long way to go before you find yourself standing atop the tower of a castle discussing the best way to defend the castle with the king. For now, you must follow along with a small cadre of adventurers to gain more experience and see the new foes and threats across the world. Though your knowledge may often not be as applicable to such a small group, you nevertheless seek to make yourself a valuable presence to your party.
Background: Sage
Specialty: Expert
Command Method: Lead from the Rear
Tactics: Manuever Into Position (1st level), Strategic Warning (2nd level), Confusing Formation (4th level), Take Cover (8th level), Changing Ranks (10th level)
Equipment: Leather armor, short sword, long bow, 10 arrows, adventurer's kit, and 70 gp.


I am sure the balance is WAY off, I literally have not spent a single minute playtesting this and I probably overlooked something major or am probably referencing mechanics that aren't even being used in DDN.  But-- this should at least make things clear as to how one would really need to stretch another class beyond the breaking point to really, truly encapsulate the concept of these sort of characters and they really belong in their own class. I am just trying to display the core of what the class really is and how the concept is probably considerably wider than the narrow image that the name "Warlord" is likely to leave one with.

As for Introducing the "Tactics" mechanic without other classes really having access to them-- It would be easy enough to create a system that allowed other character classes to purchase certain Tactics using Feats. That was, just like skills and manuevers, other classes could have access to them.

Once a week, someone starts a thread thinking they've come up with the magic world that will make people who dislike "warlord" suddenly accept the class. Tactician, Strategist, Caudillo, Warrior, Knight, Officer, Captain, Marshal, yadda, yadda, yadda.

Every name is imprecise. Every name is inexact. No name is going to convert the detractors. Warlord is the absolute worst name possible... with the exception of every other name proposed for the class.
Well, a Warlord sounds like a very specific thing-- a master of battle ruling over a legion of evil marauding monsters that will wreak havok on the world. At least a "tactician", if a bit bland, applies... but, hey, I am sure we are all open to a better name if someone can come up with it. Seriously, Captain, Marshal or Officer all sound better than "Warlord".

But what word describes the noble, the officer, the sidekick, the traveling merchant, the politician, the courtier, etc.... who all basically fulfill the group role of either setting forth the plan of attack and boost the morale before they go into battle, will join into the battle best they can but will primarily direct traffic, cheerlead or shout warnings during it and who will get to fallen heroes and passionately convince them to get back up and save the day on the brink of defeat or congratulate the party and boost their spirits after a victory.

It is a thing that I think virtually all of us comprehend as.. well.. unquestionably a class of characters that have traditionally not been given a very clear set place in the party despite having always existed in it or around it from the very beginning.

We just need a term for it that works as well as Rogue does for the sleek, shifty, nimble, alert master of skills, subterfuge and sleight of hand.

Anyway-- I mostly wanted to describe and demonstrate how the abilities belong to a fairly wide field of character archetypes that help the party intellectually and emotionally without ever carrying around a musical instrument or casting illusion spells.

Well, a Warlord sounds like a very specific thing-- a master of battle ruling over a legion of evil marauding monsters that will wreak havok on the world.


That's a pretty narrow definition.
Tactician is just too narrow:  it misses the Inspiring aspect of the Warlord, which is critical to the class's concept and also to it's effectiveness within the stilted realm of D&D hp-based combat.

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

Well, a Warlord sounds like a very specific thing-- a master of battle ruling over a legion of evil marauding monsters that will wreak havok on the world.

Yeah, tell that to John Carter.  
At least a "tactician", if a bit bland, applies... but, hey, I am sure we are all open to a better name if someone can come up with it. Seriously, Captain, Marshal or Officer all sound better than "Warlord".

They're also all narrower and less evocative than Warlord.  All three imply a mililtary rank and heirarchy that will be absent from most adventuring parties.  Marshal also has a long association with the western genre.

We just need a term for it that works as well as Rogue does for the sleek, shifty, nimble, alert master of skills, subterfuge and sleight of hand.

We have it: Warlord.


 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

I was talking to my friend about this earlier, and, honestly, I just don't think that "Warlord" works for a base class - at least as I understand the entirity of the class. What follows is all my opinion, and I claim no superiority whatsoever. 

First, an explanation. When I hear of a "Warlord" character, I think of two things: 
"War", meaning that the character knows and has experienced much of (mass?) combat.
"Lord", from which I infer that the player is a leader, an inspiration, and has a high level of authority over a lot of people, most or all of which are inferior to the character in one way or another, whether that be in terms of martial skill or just military rank.

The second half of "Lord" is what I personally have a problem with. This idea of leading a large force is something that has always been iconic in the stories of non-D&D real-world warlords. And this is something that just doesn't show up in the base class, especially at low levels. 

I understand that the "battlefield skill" and "seeing the larger battle" were, functionally, there. But it didn't feel right in terms of fluff and levels, to me, at least. Sure, a 1st level warlord "aspires to lead an army one day", but that's the point. They either haven't led one yet or just aren't at the level of in-game power to justify leading one. They are a person with potential to be a warlord (in the non-class, real-world sense), but they aren't one. 

(Again, all of this is just my opinion. You may feel differently, and I respect that completely.)

As a prestige class, however, I can very much understand and love the Warlord. I believe the designers said that they want to make prestige classes more background, in-game events oriented, rather than just having character stats prerequisites. So, rather than requiring a fighter (or whatever class) to have, say, training in Knowledge (warfare) and other such things to become a Warlord (Prestige class), the character has to lead an army, or some largish force into battle and win. In this way, things that might have otherwise been prerequisites in other editions are not necessary to start the prestige class "Warlord", but simply make it much easier to fulfill the narrative prerequisite of successfully leading an army. It also allows players to attempt to start the Prestige class early while making a player who is higher level (and thus, in terms of power level, closer to the "Warlord" archetype of Alexander the Great and William Wallace) have an easier time becoming one. 

As a DM, I might have a dying king ask a dwarf fighter to lead his army into battle in his stead. I would rule this as an extended set of skill challenges mixed with combat. If the dwarf fighter is first level, his skill die is a d4, making it difficult to meet some of the skill checks for "Knowledge (warfare)" and the such, and the combat will be more taxing on him. A 7th level dwarf fighter, however, is both more martially adept and has a higher skill die, a d8. Thus, he will have an easier time leading the dying king's army to victory. 

I personally like the idea of the "Tactician" base class very much, even if the name is a bit dry. As I understand it, the 4e Warlord is about helping your friends while still being effective in combat. By "helping friends", I mean giving extra actions, healing, and hitting things fairly hard. If a class like this existed as a base class, it could very much do things the Warlord 4e class does, like giving extra actions (and reactions for 5e), hitting things fairly hard, and perhaps a spot of healing.

Anyway, that is my two cents, and my two cents are worth not more or less than anyone else's two cents. I might start a seperate topic for this idea, but hey, we'll see how that goes. 
 
Thoughts? 

"The troll agrees to join the party. Everyone take a five-minute break." - My DM after forgetting that Clank the Warforged Fighter's second-highest stat was not Constitution, but Charisma.

The second half of "Lord" is what I personally have a problem with. This idea of leading a large force is something that has always been iconic in the stories of non-D&D real-world warlords. And this is something that just doesn't show up in the base class, especially at low levels. ...
Thoughts? 

That's basically just the "turnip cart" objection, and it applies to just about all PC classes at 1st level.  

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

The second half of "Lord" is what I personally have a problem with. This idea of leading a large force is something that has always been iconic in the stories of non-D&D real-world warlords. And this is something that just doesn't show up in the base class, especially at low levels. ...
Thoughts? 

That's basically just the "turnip cart" objection, and it applies to just about all PC classes at 1st level.  




I'm not sure I understand. What is the "Turnip cart" objection? My point was just that both the power levels and (usually) backgrounds of low level (1-5ish in D&D Next), as well as the "aspiring" aspect of the 4e class, don't match the title of "warlord", which is only usually applied to great and powerful leaders, like Alexander the Great and William Wallace, for example.

"The troll agrees to join the party. Everyone take a five-minute break." - My DM after forgetting that Clank the Warforged Fighter's second-highest stat was not Constitution, but Charisma.

The second half of "Lord" is what I personally have a problem with. This idea of leading a large force is something that has always been iconic in the stories of non-D&D real-world warlords. And this is something that just doesn't show up in the base class, especially at low levels. ...
Thoughts? 

That's basically just the "turnip cart" objection, and it applies to just about all PC classes at 1st level.  




I'm not sure I understand. What is the "Turnip cart" objection?

"You don't just fall off the turnip cart and say "I'm a Walord!""

It's entirely spurious.  Not since AD&D level titles has their been any intimation that class names should be used in-character.  Doing so gets comical. 

My point was just that both the power levels and (usually) backgrounds of low level (1-5ish in D&D Next), as well as the "aspiring" aspect of the 4e class, don't match the title of "warlord", which is only usually applied to great and powerful leaders, like Alexander the Great and William Wallace, for example.

Warlord covers a lot more ground than alternative names like Marshal, Captain, Commander, General, etc (all high and/or formal military ranks), because it is informal.  A 'warlord' might lead a very small band of guerillas, or a hanful of tribal warriors, or the united military forces of an empire, or the Red Men of Helium City on Mars,  or anything in between.  It might be a formal title or an informal description.  It is, though, in context, merely a class name and it works fine - better than all the alternatives, at any rate.

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

Once a week, someone starts a thread thinking they've come up with the magic world that will make people who dislike "warlord" suddenly accept the class. Tactician, Strategist, Caudillo, Warrior, Knight, Officer, Captain, Marshal, yadda, yadda, yadda.
Every name is imprecise. Every name is inexact. No name is going to convert the detractors. Warlord is the absolute worst name possible... with the exception of every other name proposed for the class.

+1

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!
Warlord covers a lot more ground than alternative names like Marshal, Captain, Commander, General, etc (all high and/or formal military ranks), because it is informal.  A 'warlord' might lead a very small band of guerillas, or a hanful of tribal warriors, or the united military forces of an empire, or the Red Men of Helium City on Mars,  or anything in between.  It might be a formal title or an informal description.  It is, though, in context, merely a class name and it works fine - better than all the alternatives, at any rate.



Except that the person setting forth the attack plan, keeping people's morales high and warning people of danger during battle isn't necessarily THE person in charge. In fact, the concept works quite well for the right-hand man of the boss or even for the lowly sidekick. The class could well be placed in the position where they aren't LEADING any troops at all whatsoever.

So how precisely does the term "Warlord" apply? 

The second half of "Lord" is what I personally have a problem with. This idea of leading a large force is something that has always been iconic in the stories of non-D&D real-world warlords. And this is something that just doesn't show up in the base class, especially at low levels. ...
Thoughts? 

That's basically just the "turnip cart" objection, and it applies to just about all PC classes at 1st level.  




I'm not sure I understand. What is the "Turnip cart" objection?

"You don't just fall off the turnip cart and say "I'm a Walord!""

It's entirely spurious.  Not since AD&D level titles has their been any intimation that class names should be used in-character.  Doing so gets comical.

I don't think those were supposed to be used in-character either, unless a wizard changes their school focus every level.

Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
In fact, the concept works quite well for the right-hand man of the boss or even for the lowly sidekick. The class could well be placed in the position where they aren't LEADING any troops at all whatsoever.

So how precisely does the term "Warlord" apply? 

Perfectly.  Nothing about "Warlord" implies a supreme leader.  That's one of the things that makes it so much better than Marshal or General or Captain - it doesn't imply a formal place in a strict heirarchy.  "Warlord" being the title of a right-hand man of a less martially-enclined leader is perfectly apropriate.  It doesn't even fail as the title of a wholly theoretical tactician who would never take to the field, himself.

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

My main objection is that it only describes a narrow band of Warlord characters.

Pity, because I like it.

But it's not generic enough. 
I like the tactician because he doesn't do martial healing.  I'll keep him on file for further review.
....Plan the Assault:...
Inspire the Troops:....
Lead from the Front:...



Pokemon-style power names written in second person POV.  Instant fail.


....Plan the Assault:...
Inspire the Troops:....
Lead from the Front:...



Pokemon-style power names written in second person POV.  Instant fail.





Huh?
I'm guessing you never saw the names of the powers in 4th edition.
Or the feats in the last two editions.
Or the spells in ANY edition.

In fact, I have to venture to guess you have never actually played a d&d game in your life or you'd have come to expect Pokemon-style power names (watergun, heal, thunderbolt, bite, paralyze, acid, blizzard, mimic, psywave) and have accepted them as a pretty standard aspect of the game. 

Seriously-- 90% of Pokemon attack names sound like they should be spells on the wizard's spell list. 

Well, a Warlord sounds like a very specific thing-- a master of battle ruling over a legion of evil marauding monsters that will wreak havok on the world.

Yeah, tell that to John Carter.  




The absolute first time I heard of the name Warlord!!!!! The recent movie wasnt bad but very very poorly advertised.

The second time was I beleive the heroic character in DC comics titled Warlord.

  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 


I'm guessing you never saw the names of the powers in 4th edition.


I did, and despised them, and think it's a significant part of why some players turned away from 4e.  I'd rather not inflict that curse on DDN.
 
Or the feats in the last two editions.
Or the spells in ANY edition.


The spells from most editions were not written in 2nd-person POV.  The names were not verb constructions but nouns. 


In fact, I have to venture to guess you have never actually played a d&d game in your life or you'd have come to expect Pokemon-style power names...


And you'd be very wrong, so what was the point of the mis-aimed attempt at poisoning the well?
 
Pokemon-style

I'm sorry, are you trying to use this as some sort of derogatory or insulting term? Because that would make no sense considering how amazing Pokemon is. It is a staggeringly successful RPG, and D&D could actually learn a thing or two from it.

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'm guessing you never saw the names of the powers in 4th edition.


I did, and despised them, and think it's a significant part of why some players turned away from 4e.  I'd rather not inflict that curse on DDN.
 
Or the feats in the last two editions.
Or the spells in ANY edition.


The spells from most editions were not written in 2nd-person POV.  The names were not verb constructions but nouns. 


In fact, I have to venture to guess you have never actually played a d&d game in your life or you'd have come to expect Pokemon-style power names...


And you'd be very wrong, so what was the point of the mis-aimed attempt at poisoning the well?
 



Well then, I guess the reverse would have to be true and you never actually played Pokemon in your life and have no idea what the attack names in that game actually sound like-- since, again, the attacks in Pokemon sound a LOT more like spell names used in D&D since 1st edition than they sound like 4E power names.

Which, when you try to use it as your primary insult and say things "fail" because of it, just serves to wholely unmine the credibility of both you and your comment by revealing you haven't the slightest clue what you are talking about. 

Pokemon-style

I'm sorry, are you trying to use this as some sort of derogatory or insulting term? Because that would make no sense considering how amazing Pokemon is. It is a staggeringly successful RPG, and D&D could actually learn a thing or two from it.


The Spice Girls were also staggeringly successful.  They weren't an RPG any more than Pokemon is.

Pokemon-style

I'm sorry, are you trying to use this as some sort of derogatory or insulting term? Because that would make no sense considering how amazing Pokemon is. It is a staggeringly successful RPG, and D&D could actually learn a thing or two from it.


The Spice Girls were also staggeringly successful.  They weren't an RPG any more than Pokemon is.



But Pokemon is a tabletop RPG.  Of course, since the Spice Girls were built as characters in the tabletop RPG Macho Women With Guns, I guess you're technically correct.  Not sure where that gets you, though.
Warlord is used too often these days on the radio to refer to dictatorial terrorist militants in the Middle-East.  It's an accurate description for them, but it's unfortunate because that usage now has more clout than anything other usage for the term

Marshal and White Raven are the only other terms D&D have used to talk about this character concept.  White Raven is more of a Prestige Class or a fighting style than a base class.  Marshal is thus the only name with clout at the moment. 

That said, they wouldn't have jettisoned Marshal for Warlord in 4e if they didn't feel that Marshal wasn't quite right.  There was a problem with the name, and perhaps more research is necessary. 

Tactician certainly doesn't work for the class name.  Maybe one of the build choices, but definitely not the name of the class. 

This is another reason why I feel Warlord/Marshal/whatever isn't a real class.  We're trying to shoehorn something in that doesn't really exist.  In a perfect world, the Fighter class would be versatile enough to cover concepts like Tactician, Field-Marshal, Commando, Bravura, etc.

Before posting, why not ask yourself, What Would Wrecan Say?

IMAGE(http://images.onesite.com/community.wizards.com/user/marandahir/thumb/9ac5d970f3a59330212c73baffe4c556.png?v=90000)

A great man once said "If WotC put out boxes full of free money there'd still be people complaining about how it's folded." – Boraxe

This is another reason why I feel Warlord/Marshal/whatever isn't a real class.  We're trying to shoehorn something in that doesn't really exist.  In a perfect world, the Fighter class would be versatile enough to cover concepts like Tactician, Field-Marshal, Commando, Bravura, etc.

The warlord concept absolutely DOES exsist.  It's just had TOO many real-world names.  Noble, officer, coach, or even CEO (Shift Manager for low level warlords).

"Guy coordinating the troops" is very much a real job.

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.

Eh, if there's a name for an armed and armored guy who channels the power of the divine to heal people, it sure isn't "cleric". Or at least, it wasn't, until D&D decided to just roll with that name, and now that's the name of the concept. Giving something an imperfect name isn't the end of the world; that just becomes the name of the thing.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
....Plan the Assault:...
Inspire the Troops:....
Lead from the Front:...



Pokemon-style power names written in second person POV.  Instant fail.





This, and yes I know where its from.
This is another reason why I feel Warlord/Marshal/whatever isn't a real class.  We're trying to shoehorn something in that doesn't really exist.  In a perfect world, the Fighter class would be versatile enough to cover concepts like Tactician, Field-Marshal, Commando, Bravura, etc.

The warlord concept absolutely DOES exsist.  It's just had TOO many real-world names.  Noble, officer, coach, or even CEO (Shift Manager for low level warlords).

"Guy coordinating the troops" is very much a real job.



The thing is, coaches spent their life playing the sport before retiring from the action to lead others.  CEOs rose through the ranks AS BUSINESSMEN, before securing the leadership position.  Noblemen in Medieval society are the same thing as Knights, as well, and in a sexistless medieval fantasy, Noblewomen would occupy that same space.  The thing that unites these people is that they are actually the same thing as they're leading, they're just in a leadership position – either the Warlord's backstory is Fighter, or the Warlord happened to go be trained for a leadership position in the Fighter world form the get-go.  In either case, that doesn't make the Warlord not a Fighter, it makes it a type of Fighter.  Veteran is a type of Fighter.  Officer would be too.

Before posting, why not ask yourself, What Would Wrecan Say?

IMAGE(http://images.onesite.com/community.wizards.com/user/marandahir/thumb/9ac5d970f3a59330212c73baffe4c556.png?v=90000)

A great man once said "If WotC put out boxes full of free money there'd still be people complaining about how it's folded." – Boraxe


I feel like the Warlord is probably not the best of names for a class that is meant to be a non-magical tactical leader. Probably the Warlord and Bard could be mixed together as styles of a single class.


"Tactical" is only half the Player's Handbook Warlord, "Inspiring" is the other half, more builds were added later.  While Tactics is something any warlord can do with the choice of exploits, Inspiration is something all Warlords do.  You can't just toss it away like that.  Warlord is a much better name than Tactician, which is too narrow and uninspiring.

Bards are spell-casters.  At least, they were casting Druid spells when I stopped playing D&D, and were using "arcane powers" when I came back.  Clearly something happened to them in-between to change them from Fighter/Thief/Druids to Arcane Leaders.  Did they stop casting spells in between? 
- Warlords! Join the 'Officer Country' Group! Join Grognards for 4e, the D&D that changed D&D.


D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium

Bards are spell-casters.  At least, they were casting Druid spells when I stopped playing D&D, and were using "arcane powers" when I came back.  Clearly something happened to them in-between to change them from Fighter/Thief/Druids to Arcane Leaders.  Did they stop casting spells in between?

They never stopped casting spells, but their ability to inspire was always separate from their spellcasting until 4E.

Danny

Bards are spell-casters.  At least, they were casting Druid spells when I stopped playing D&D, and were using "arcane powers" when I came back.  Clearly something happened to them in-between to change them from Fighter/Thief/Druids to Arcane Leaders.  Did they stop casting spells in between?

They never stopped casting spells, but their ability to inspire was always separate from their spellcasting until 4E.

4e Bardic "Virtues" aren't spell casting, and seem to be about inspiring through their stories and songs.  But, the key point here is that Bards are spell casters, and have apparently always been spell casters.  Thus the bard could never be folded together with the Warlord, which is not a spell caster at all.

- Warlords! Join the 'Officer Country' Group! Join Grognards for 4e, the D&D that changed D&D.


D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium

The thing is, coaches spent their life playing the sport before retiring from the action to lead others.  CEOs rose through the ranks AS BUSINESSMEN, before securing the leadership position.  Noblemen in Medieval society are the same thing as Knights, as well, and in a sexistless medieval fantasy, Noblewomen would occupy that same space.  The thing that unites these people is that they are actually the same thing as they're leading, they're just in a leadership position – either the Warlord's backstory is Fighter, or the Warlord happened to go be trained for a leadership position in the Fighter world form the get-go.  In either case, that doesn't make the Warlord not a Fighter, it makes it a type of Fighter.  Veteran is a type of Fighter.  Officer would be too.



I'd like people with this stance to consider-- REALLY consider-- why exactly they would pin this on "fighter"?

So the noble who spent most of his/her life in a cozy palace safe from both the monsters of the world and the muck and grime outside, studying books about history, playing chess, learning diplomacy and tactics and perhaps practicing fencing on an occassion. How is that any more a "fighter" than a "rogue"?
Okay, what about the diplomat or other courtier who would be more at home battling in the courts, but when placed on a real battlefield the best they can do is shout encouragement, warn of danger and try to distract the enemy enough to give openings to their companions. Again-- in what way, shape or form is this a "fighter"?

What about the love interest who gets the hero back into battle with a passionate speech when he is on the verge of defeat? The spunky young sidekick who assists by distracting the enemy, shouting out warnings to the hero and occassionally coming up with a clever plan to help the hero?

How are these concepts in anyway "fighters"?

You see-- they aren't. This comes down to a fundamental flaw about the perception of class. People are quick to label absolutely anything at all that doesn't have overt magic a "fighter" which is just plain short-sighted. Not absolutely everything imaginable that doesn't have magic a fighter by default-- fighter has a very specific meaning. It is a class that revolves around absorbing the most damage possible and dealing really good damage on a long-term consistent basis. None of which the concepts that purely under the umbrella I am calling "Tactician"-types do.

Moreover, these various concepts are not high level experienced fighters either. All of them are not going to be able to stand toe-to-toe with someone who spent as much as much time mastering the blade and learning to easily walk around in the heaviest armor as they have spent learning to tap into people's emotions and finding a way for them and their allies to survive tough situations.

These concepts are not fighters. They are not about wearing bulky armor and mastering weapons better than anyone else. They are not Rogues, they are not about being sneaky and shifty, picking pockets, disabling traps or coming up behind someone and gutting them with a dagger.

They are something else distinctly different. The problem is simply that there is no name that works to cover all possible archetypes and tropes that fall into this category despite them all having the same role. 

4e Bardic "Virtues" aren't spell casting, and seem to be about inspiring through their stories and songs.  But, the key point here is that Bards are spell casters, have (if you are correct) always been spell casters, and could never be folded together with the Warlord, which is not a spell caster at all.

The bardic virtues specifically reference the particular qualities of legendary peoples that bards emphasize personally. They have nothing to do with the ability to cast spells or inspire, they're ideals that individual bards aspire towards in their heroism.

But, yes, warlords aren't bards because magic.

Danny

  In either case, that doesn't make the Warlord not a Fighter, it makes it a type of Fighter.  Veteran is a type of Fighter.  Officer would be too.



The cleric is that a fighter too?  In real life Clergy who had fighting ability did so because they were raised part of that same class that also bread leaders... then decided that a different path would serve them better... but yes it.does have its own class.

  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

4e Bardic "Virtues" aren't spell casting, and seem to be about inspiring through their stories and songs.  But, the key point here is that Bards are spell casters, have (if you are correct) always been spell casters, and could never be folded together with the Warlord, which is not a spell caster at all.

The bardic virtues specifically reference the particular qualities of legendary peoples that bards emphasize personally. They have nothing to do with the ability to cast spells or inspire, they're ideals that individual bards aspire towards in their heroism.

Then, how do they affect their allies with them?

But, yes, warlords aren't bards because magic.



- Warlords! Join the 'Officer Country' Group! Join Grognards for 4e, the D&D that changed D&D.


D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium

The thing is, coaches spent their life playing the sport before retiring from the action to lead others.  CEOs rose through the ranks AS BUSINESSMEN, before securing the leadership position.  Noblemen in Medieval society are the same thing as Knights, as well, and in a sexistless medieval fantasy, Noblewomen would occupy that same space.  The thing that unites these people is that they are actually the same thing as they're leading, they're just in a leadership position – either the Warlord's backstory is Fighter, or the Warlord happened to go be trained for a leadership position in the Fighter world form the get-go.  In either case, that doesn't make the Warlord not a Fighter, it makes it a type of Fighter.  Veteran is a type of Fighter.  Officer would be too.



I'd like people with this stance to consider-- REALLY consider-- why exactly they would pin this on "fighter"?

So the noble who spent most of his/her life in a cozy palace safe from both the monsters of the world and the muck and grime outside, studying books about history, playing chess, learning diplomacy and tactics and perhaps practicing fencing on an occassion. How is that any more a "fighter" than a "rogue"?
Okay, what about the diplomat or other courtier who would be more at home battling in the courts, but when placed on a real battlefield the best they can do is shout encouragement, warn of danger and try to distract the enemy enough to give openings to their companions. Again-- in what way, shape or form is this a "fighter"?

What about the love interest who gets the hero back into battle with a passionate speech when he is on the verge of defeat? The spunky young sidekick who assists by distracting the enemy, shouting out warnings to the hero and occassionally coming up with a clever plan to help the hero?

How are these concepts in anyway "fighters"?

You see-- they aren't. This comes down to a fundamental flaw about the perception of class. People are quick to label absolutely anything at all that doesn't have overt magic a "fighter" which is just plain short-sighted. Not absolutely everything imaginable that doesn't have magic a fighter by default-- fighter has a very specific meaning. It is a class that revolves around absorbing the most damage possible and dealing really good damage on a long-term consistent basis. None of which the concepts that purely under the umbrella I am calling "Tactician"-types do.

Moreover, these various concepts are not high level experienced fighters either. All of them are not going to be able to stand toe-to-toe with someone who spent as much as much time mastering the blade and learning to easily walk around in the heaviest armor as they have spent learning to tap into people's emotions and finding a way for them and their allies to survive tough situations.

These concepts are not fighters. They are not about wearing bulky armor and mastering weapons better than anyone else. They are not Rogues, they are not about being sneaky and shifty, picking pockets, disabling traps or coming up behind someone and gutting them with a dagger.

They are something else distinctly different. The problem is simply that there is no name that works to cover all possible archetypes and tropes that fall into this category despite them all having the same role. 



You've described a Rogue who took an inspiration specialty and Noble background and asked me to consider why I would call that a Fighter.  I don't have an answer for you because you built a strawman out of my argument.  @_@

Before posting, why not ask yourself, What Would Wrecan Say?

IMAGE(http://images.onesite.com/community.wizards.com/user/marandahir/thumb/9ac5d970f3a59330212c73baffe4c556.png?v=90000)

A great man once said "If WotC put out boxes full of free money there'd still be people complaining about how it's folded." – Boraxe

The Spice Girls were also staggeringly successful.  They weren't an RPG any more than Pokemon is.

Uh, what? Pokemon is inarguably an RPG.

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's definitely an RPG; it's just a different brand of RPG than the classic console JRPGs of Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy fair.  That's a good thing; diversity of gameplay within the genre is good.

Before posting, why not ask yourself, What Would Wrecan Say?

IMAGE(http://images.onesite.com/community.wizards.com/user/marandahir/thumb/9ac5d970f3a59330212c73baffe4c556.png?v=90000)

A great man once said "If WotC put out boxes full of free money there'd still be people complaining about how it's folded." – Boraxe

This is another reason why I feel Warlord/Marshal/whatever isn't a real class.  We're trying to shoehorn something in that doesn't really exist.  In a perfect world, the Fighter class would be versatile enough to cover concepts like Tactician, Field-Marshal, Commando, Bravura, etc.

The warlord concept absolutely DOES exsist.  It's just had TOO many real-world names.  Noble, officer, coach, or even CEO (Shift Manager for low level warlords).

"Guy coordinating the troops" is very much a real job.

The thing is, coaches spent their life playing the sport before retiring from the action to lead others.  CEOs rose through the ranks AS BUSINESSMEN, before securing the leadership position.  Noblemen in Medieval society are the same thing as Knights, as well, and in a sexistless medieval fantasy, Noblewomen would occupy that same space.  The thing that unites these people is that they are actually the same thing as they're leading, they're just in a leadership position – either the Warlord's backstory is Fighter, or the Warlord happened to go be trained for a leadership position in the Fighter world form the get-go.  In either case, that doesn't make the Warlord not a Fighter, it makes it a type of Fighter.  Veteran is a type of Fighter.  Officer would be too.

Running a resturant is an entirely different skill set then cooking.
Being a CEO of a car company is an entirely different skill set then knowing how to drive.
Leading an army is an entirely different skill set then knowing how to swing a sword.
Warlord is an etirely different class then fighter. 


And yes, warlords can come from a variety of sources.  Starting out as a fighter, but proving themselves by keeping cool under fire, or by gaining the trust of their allies is a fine trope.  So is being groomed for leadership by heritage, or officer training (or buisness school).  Neither of which means he's supergood at stabbing things.

I'm not seeing how having 2 different tropes is a bad thing...

Edit: Actually, "trained for" and "natural talent" are tropes for plenty of classes. 

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.

You've described a Rogue who took an inspiration specialty and Noble background and asked me to consider why I would call that a Fighter.  I don't have an answer for you because you built a strawman out of my argument.  @_@



You are the one who insisted that everything that was a leader was by default a Fighter.

And those concepts aren't really Rogues either. Rogues have crazy skills, they try to remain as quiet as possible, they sneak around, come up behind enemies and gut them with daggers-- their specialties are all about picking locks, disabling traps...

To put it another way-- Luke Skywalker is a Paladin, Han Solo is a Rogue, Chewbacca is a Fighter, Princess Leia is a "Warlord".  Pretty simple, yes?

Without a class that focuses on giving other people bonuses to abilities, granting opportunity attacks, lowering enemy effectiveness against the party and so forth... well, there just isn't a class that really properly conveys what the character concepts that I put into the OP here should actually be doing.

As a result, they either get shoe-horned into a class that forces upon them to spend their character development either taking on abilities that don't make any sense for them and FORCE them to act in ways that are quite uncharacteristic for them or just refuse to act all together because what their abilities require them to do in order to contribute is directly against the character concept... or gives them absolutely nothing forcing them to be absolute useless albastrosses hanging around the necks of everyone else in the group.

You think anyone is going to take kindly to the "Rogue" who spends all their skill points in abilities that are never going to come up in the course of a typical adventure, spends no skill points on the skills that people expect the Rogue to be able to do in order to get the party safely through the dungeon and refuse to tumble through the enemy ranks to use sneak attack and poison because it would be directly against their character's nature to role around on the ground (even if they had taken any ranks in tumble) or dishonorably stab someone in the back? Yeah-- good luck with that.

The concept of this class is to give these character concepts which have existed in fantasy as far back as groups of unlikely heroes banding together to accomplish a great goal have existed in the fantasy genre, an actual place at the table and role within the game that they were not previously afforded. 

Sign In to post comments