|
1 year ago ::
May 07, 2012 - 12:13PM
#41
|
|
|
The Warlord works better as a theme.
Healing Fighter or bossy Paladin?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 07, 2012 - 12:48PM
#42
|
|
|
When I hear the term warlord I think of some local despot in Africa or Afghanistan driving around with his convoi of pick-ups and his goons with their AK47s sitting in the beds Other than repeating what I've already said, because you've said nothing to convince me that class "bloat" is a bad thing, rather than a good thing,
It leads to either undersupported classes or to all classes being supported equally little.
Really, I wish they just would have eratta'ed the swordmage to be a wizard subclass. Oh all this great new power choices suddenly available. If they keep fighter and warlord sepparte, they can with the same space release either a fighter article that the warlord can not use, a warlord article that the fighter can not use or a fighter and a warlord article that are each only half as long and the respective other can still not use. If fighter and warlord are subclasses of the same parent class, they can release an article for the parent class and each one can cherry-pick anything from the article they like
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 08, 2012 - 8:23PM
#43
|
|
|
When I hear the term warlord I think of some local despot in Africa or Afghanistan driving around with his convoi of pick-ups and his goons with their AK47s sitting in the beds
Other than repeating what I've already said, because you've said nothing to convince me that class "bloat" is a bad thing, rather than a good thing,
It leads to either undersupported classes or to all classes being supported equally little.
Really, I wish they just would have eratta'ed the swordmage to be a wizard subclass. Oh all this great new power choices suddenly available.
No, it doesn't. Or at least, it doesn't have to. There are maybe a handful of 4e classes that are undersupported. Only two (not counting subclasses) shouldn't exist, and I'd even argue that Seekers have a rightful place.
(Runepriests should exist, too, actually. They just shouldn't have been done differently)
Swordmages should not have been a wizard subclass. Swordmages aren't wizards. If they were wizards, they wouldn't be able to work like they do, and that would be a loss.
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.
I could say anything in D&D is silly though, because it's a silly game and we are silly people.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 08, 2012 - 8:24PM
#44
|
|
|
I don't know. Those words aren't really familiar to most people.
When was the last time you saw someone use the word 'cleric' that wasn't D&D-related? They don't look like English, which might be a turn-off, but I'd say that the fact they're not familiar is an advantage.
The edition to bring in all the grognards and keep the new kids isn't the place to introduce such unfamiliar terms, if there are familiar alternatives, which there are.
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.
I could say anything in D&D is silly though, because it's a silly game and we are silly people.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 08, 2012 - 9:24PM
#45
|
|
|
I agree with some of the others on here.Most of these classes are just taking up space for the sake of it.With the roles that 4th introduced the just laid out a blueprint to make more classes then they needed.Hmm lets see we want to have at least 1 striker,controller,defender and leader per source possibly more then 1 for each.So they really just took specialist concepts of already existing classes to make the new ones.
Like someone already said the avenger is just a paladin that wears no armor and has some rogue/assassin abilities.A warlord is a non divine oriented paladin.A well armored individual that uses inspiration to heal and buff his allies and fight in the thick of things.Again they just needed a martial class that could do what the paladin/cleric could do so they made the warlord.
As far as the question at hand goes warlord may sound a bit ominous but it does fit what the class does.A couple of other names that are less agressive would be Doyen or Luminary.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 08, 2012 - 11:05PM
#46
|
|
|
Do those words mean something along the lines of "battle oriented leader of men?"
I disagree too much on the rest to make a reletively short response, so I'll just leave it at a general statement of disagreement.
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.
I could say anything in D&D is silly though, because it's a silly game and we are silly people.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 08, 2012 - 11:59PM
#47
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2006
|
* For me the avenger is like the demon hunter of Diablo III or the inquisitor from Pathfinder rpg.
* Warlord/Marshall could be useful for settins with low level of magic, but I can´t imagine it like a (true) "healer" class. It may be a PC who inspires his comrades in arms help about fear effects, neutralize penaltys by injuries (forget the pain!!) and "give" temporal hit points (do last effort!!). I think there is a space for "it": the possible future wargame with armies of miniatures (Why not? I don´t rule out a new real-time-strategy videogame like Dragonshard).
"Say me what you're showing off for, and I'll say you what you lack!" (Spanish saying)
Book 13 Anaclet 23
Confucius said: "The Superior Man is in harmony but does not follow the crowd. The inferior man follows the crowd, but is not in harmony"
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 09, 2012 - 4:01AM
#48
|
|
|
I agree with some of the others on here.Most of these classes are just taking up space for the sake of it.With the roles that 4th introduced the just laid out a blueprint to make more classes then they needed.Hmm lets see we want to have at least 1 striker,controller,defender and leader per source possibly more then 1 for each.So they really just took specialist concepts of already existing classes to make the new ones.
Like someone already said the avenger is just a paladin that wears no armor and has some rogue/assassin abilities.A warlord is a non divine oriented paladin.A well armored individual that uses inspiration to heal and buff his allies and fight in the thick of things.Again they just needed a martial class that could do what the paladin/cleric could do so they made the warlord.
As far as the question at hand goes warlord may sound a bit ominous but it does fit what the class does.A couple of other names that are less agressive would be Doyen or Luminary.
I don't get it why people think the Avengers stole a Paladin concept and ran off with it Paladins are the supposed to be the knights in shinning armor the guys the church sends out pro bono to kill dragons and bring good publicity to the church "See we here at the church of X are nice heroic guys, so join up and you too can become a hero!" while Avengers are the guys they send out in the dead of the night to kill off a council member who worships Asmodeus or the church just hates his guts.
The Avengers don't serve their deities through their shining heroism and good deeds they serve by doing the dirty deeds which need to be done and crop up when you're a major cult, they don't want to be thanked they'd prefer nobody knows they exist.
Let's say you have your standard priest:
his reaction to a Paladin: " Good sir you are a hero and a inspiration I am your number one fan!"
his reaction to a Avenger: "Church sanctioned assasins in my faith? Nah nah I can't hear you go away blasphemous figment of my imagination!"
And looking at the mechanics I don't really see Avengers as unarmored Paladins they're a distinct class with distinct fluff their only link is they're Divine classes which use swords, maybe.
The argumment that Avengers take away from Paladins is so weird to me since Avengers do something the Paladin was never meant to do it's like a SW game where you have only Jedi but which can fall for Dark Side actions and then you have a new editions which make Sith as a base class which normally have no problem with Dark Side, but since they're both Force Classes you get Jedi players complaining Sith took concepts away from them.
Actually this is a good test I think if a class has both the fluff and mechanics to play such disparate concepts as Emperor Palaptine and Yoda it can stand to be broken up into more classes.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 09, 2012 - 6:17AM
#49
|
Date Joined:
Feb 12, 2004
|
Really, I wish they just would have eratta'ed the swordmage to be a wizard subclass.
They did the swordmage as a wizard subclass. It was called the bladesinger, and it was awful. They tried to cram necromancer into the wizards hat and the result was lackluster, boring, and terrible, providing neither meaningful wizard options nor an evocative option for those who wanted to play the necromancer archetype. Shaman was infinitely more functional as a pet class than either the beastmaster ranger or the sentinel druid precisely because it was a separate class, alowing everything to be built around the concept.
Bloat of options within a few classes is just as bloaty as a any other form of option bloat, and is more prone to balance issues because of the increased number of combinations. Classes are defined as much by what they don't do as by what they do. Separate classes let you do not just separate powers, but also separate class features and skill lists and overall mechanics. Having a few classes that do everything washes out flavor and distinction, and leaves more exotic character concepts unworkable.
Necromancy: Friendship is MagicSpoiler:
Show
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 09, 2012 - 9:33AM
#50
|
|
|
The Fighter fights. The "warlord" wages war by directing the forces he's with. Let him be called the Warrior.
|
|
|
