Community

Oct 7, 2012 -- 8:44AM, The_Jester wrote:

The role of combat medic is overstated anyway. The focus on in-combat healing was very much focused and emphasised in 4e play and is an extension of MMO play where the in-combat healer is a much larger role. It makes great sense from 4e's design focus on giving everyone something to do in combat, but might not necassarily be as necassary all the time in 5e.
When playing earlier editions, the frequency a cleric would be using their healing mid-fight will vary greatly between groups, between levels, and between play style. Many quick short fights means there's less incentive to have an in-combat healer and an out-of-combat healer might work just fine at prolonging the combat day.

I agree, in older editions heals were rarely used in combat because they were largely inneffective relative to damage dealt. For example in 3.5e, outside of occasionally stabilizing an unconscious ally, I don't think I ever saw an in combat heal until level 11+ when the Heal spell came online (which is basically the only spell whose healing capability even pretended like it could match damage output from a level appropriate enemy).

That said, I preferred 4e's healing mechanic, where hit points were more moderate (higher at low levels, lower at high levels), and the hit points would fluctuate more both up and down in combat. Yes, it is a design philosophy difference between 3e and 4e, but it is one I would prefer to see embraced, because it lets different characters be doing different things in combat, rather than the main goal being everyone just rushing to deal as much damage as quickly as possible.

Oct 6, 2012 -- 9:46PM, Seerow wrote:

As an aside, the Fighter has little to no incentive to have any mental attribute as a decent stat. All of his class features and combat capability key off of str(or dex) and con. By taking another attribute as a primary/secondary (and thus making it high enough to matter and let him contribute meaningfully either as a Lore guy/tactitian or social guy), he is sacrificing attributes elsewhere, and making himself less effective, while lacking the class abilities to make up for that, because his class abilities are all made with the assumption the fighter is making himself better.

Aside from skills, no there isn't. So far 5e has no forced secondary stat providing kicker bonuses.
A 5e warlord might not have a mandatory high Cha or Int either and be a pure Cha class. Or would be an Int class that could choose Dex or Str for weapons.

I wasn't talking about the secondary stat regarding warlords, I was talking about an Inspiring Warlord vs a Tactical Warlord, ie two different builds with different primary stats.

And you completely ignore the point that the Fighter, as the front liner, is wanting high strength or dex, and high constitution. Moreso than other classes who aren't specifically supposed to be the meat shield up front. If you try to give the Fighter primary level int or charisma, his capability as a front liner will go down. On the other hand, the Warlord would be designed specifically with the primary attribute being Int/Cha in mind. 

I'm not a huge fan of the existance of the ranger/ barbarian/ paladin either since the paladin could very easily be handled via solid multclass rules. Or the druid as a "wildnerness" domain cleric.  
They survive because they're grandfathered into the game, being some of the first expansion classes. They're part of the game now. I would accept them going away in a new edition, but not 5e with it's design goal of being the "best of" edition.

If 5e has the goal of being the "best of" edition, why is it so hard for you to accept an extremely favored class from 4th edition as one that deserves a space simply by virtue of being "best of" 4th edition? If you can grandfather in classes from older editions, why not accept that you can grandfather in a class from 4e? 

As others have pointed out to you repeatedly, and you continuously ignore, the Warlord was a very popular class, probably top 3 among 4e players. Refusing to allow it to have a place in the game is a big middle finger to the fans of that game, and extremely hypocritical when other classes that have less justification for existing continue to do so just because they're older. There's a sentiment among many 4e fans that the development is trying to avoid anything 4e just because. You want to solidify that opinion and break the fanbase again, leaving out the Warlord is the way to do it.

I like the warlord. I really do. It was the first class I latched onto. I pushed my wife to play one in my 4e homegame to see it in action. I was incredibly annoyed that Essentialls and the later books never made a revised warlord because you could do some really, really cool things with the concept. My one 4e regret is that I never managed to play a warlord myself. 
But I don't belive my personal likes and appreciations and strong enough to justify the class.

You're a hoot. You go across all the forum repeatedly talking about how Warlords shouldn't be a class and fail as a character concept, but really you do like them! Give me a break. Your appeal to seem more moderate is transparent.

Oct 7, 2012 -- 9:25AM, wrecan wrote:

@Seerow: You attributed something that The Jester said to me, and I would never have said that.  Could you go back and fix that?

@Jester: Other than both the warlord using weapons, I don't see how they step on each other's toes.

The warlords' schtick is that he gets his allies to work better together than they could work alone.  He can do that by creating openings for his allies, by creating scenarios in which the allies complement one another and by encouraging and bolstering his allies.  I think this third element, which does overlap with the bard is in fact the least important part of the warlord class.  More important is the warlord's ability to create openings for his allies, or to get his allies to close openings exposed to their enemies. 

I know you didn't want to discuss mechanics, but to me the warlord's signature ability is not his martial healing or his buffs.  It's his ability to use one of his actions to give one of his allies a reaction.  That's not something I think is appropriate for a fighter, who concentrates on the use of weapons, not the use of allies.

There was a saying in 4e, which I think sums it up well:

A barbarian wields axes; a warlord wields barbarians.

Fighters don't "wield" their allies.  A warlord does.  A warlord may wield a sword, but he doesn't do it as well as his fighter ally.   But the warlord's presence allows the fighter to wield the sword twice as effectively (if the warlord concentrates on the fighter to the exclusion of his other allies).

Lol. That reminds me of a time I was playing a Warforged 2h Fighter, and the new guy was playing a taclord. After the first time he let me charge in ahead of everyone to wreak havoc anddestruction, he always started the fights with "I throw my Fighter at them". Referring to me as "his Fighter".