|
10 months ago ::
Aug 13, 2012 - 1:17PM
#41
|
Date Joined:
Mar 19, 2004
|
No Warlord class, despite earlier promises of "every class from every PHB 1", isn't a surprise.
::sigh: Mearls has not outright denied the prospect of a Warlord class just yet. If anything, there're more hints comfirming the existence of a Warlord class (Mearls admission of wanting to see it, the whole "specialties blur the line between classes and feats" statement).
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 13, 2012 - 1:24PM
#42
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
I don't think Mike knows if there will be a warlord class yet - so any speculation we do is kinda pointless.
I'd hazard a guess he wants to put the class in - for marketing reasons if nothing else (every popular class that's not it leads to one more hurdle for some small fraction of the market).
But I also think he wants the class to be able to stand on its own and not be wasted space - and isn't sure yet what the Warlord will look like or if they can come up with a verson that works.
Carl
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 13, 2012 - 1:39PM
#43
|
Date Joined:
Mar 19, 2004
|
Well, that's the size of it yes. The Warlord's still up in the air, folks.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 13, 2012 - 1:41PM
#44
|
Date Joined:
Jul 11, 2012
|
I don't think Mike knows if there will be a warlord class yet - so any speculation we do is kinda pointless.
I'd hazard a guess he wants to put the class in - for marketing reasons if nothing else (every popular class that's not it leads to one more hurdle for some small fraction of the market).
But I also think he wants the class to be able to stand on its own and not be wasted space - and isn't sure yet what the Warlord will look like or if they can come up with a verson that works.
Carl
That is precisely my impression as well.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 13, 2012 - 2:43PM
#45
|
|
|
After re-listening I agree it's still up in the air.
My comments stand though.
I disagree that there aren't defining mechanics which can make the Warlord "special" in Next (moving allies, granting actions and non-magical in-combat healing aren't appearing anywhere else),
that the Warlord can't work in ToTM (I've run 4th Ed in ToTM without problems, but for those who "can't" you could still have everything I've just listed in the current combat system and ToTM without problems),
and that you can just do a Warlord with Themes (or Specialities, if that's the term they prefer) due to the number of elements which are essential miniums.
The point that players from earlier editions would be screaming if Wizards were a Theme off of a Mage class (however good an idea it is to have Vancian as only ONE AMONG MANY casting options for the "book study, learned power" caster) is a good one.
Also that the Warlord, as the definitive 4th Edition class, is an essential if WotC want to ensure that they don't just lose much of their current player base in the same way they did some of their last in the previous edition changes (2nd to 3rd, 3.5 to 4th).
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 13, 2012 - 5:46PM
#46
|
Date Joined:
Jun 22, 2010
|
I still disagree on the ambiguity of the rules for how many actions per turn. It is better to at least devise some basic rules to define the type of actions, and how many may be done. If you rely on abilities, items or spells to define it, then you have 1000+ items to balance for action economy (any one may implement varied actions per turn), versus defining the types of actions first, and then everything fits into those categories. I prefer attack versus abilities, versus saving throws. It saves time for the DM and the rolls are resolved on the players or creatures turn. I like the stat checks as the core, then adding skill specialization, but I am still mixed on whether a core class design should include a skill specialist a la the rogue with skill mastery. There are a lot of concepts available to the rogue without it. Because a wizard would be likely candidate as well to be well versed in skills, since the core class concept relies on books and research. The same could apply to noble elite martial classes like a samurai or knight. A cleric is a good candidate as well. Basically knowledge is power for all classes should they go that route, what makes rogues gain this above any other class?
The were some comments made here and there about making the DM the ultimate rules arbritrator, which is to be expected, but is often referenced when they don't want well defined systems for action per turn, encounter design, etc. That is starting to get under my skin, because alot of rules for appropriate actions per turn or good encounter design already exit. Why must they abandon it? 2 steps forward, 3 steps back.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 17, 2012 - 3:35PM
#47
|
|
|
Anyone know how they plan on converting the Aofel character?
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 17, 2012 - 3:53PM
#48
|
Date Joined:
Aug 23, 2007
|
Anyone know how they plan on converting the Aofel character?
They most likely won't, Mr. Wheaton doesn't appear to be in the room during the podcasts.
I'd make him a High Elf rogue with the Acolyte specialty and priest background.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 17, 2012 - 4:27PM
#49
|
|
|
Anyone know how they plan on converting the Aofel character?
They most likely won't, Mr. Wheaton doesn't appear to be in the room during the podcasts.
I'd make him a High Elf rogue with the Acolyte specialty and priest background.
He's not in this podcast, but as far as I know he's supposed to be at the live game thingy at PAX.
So... he will need a character of some form.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 17, 2012 - 4:40PM
#50
|
Date Joined:
Aug 23, 2007
|
Well that's good, Wil is always entertaining.
Like I said, High Elf rogue (thug) with priest background and acolyte specialty.
|
|
|
