|
3 months ago ::
Feb 25, 2013 - 5:06PM
#131
|
Date Joined:
Jan 29, 2005
|
While I love that idea (stacking the class with the best of 4th Ed) I'd hate to see such a great concept outright banned at many tables.
After their implementation in 4e, they are automatically banned at my table.
Regardless of what mechanics and flavour they bring in Next?
That seems a little...
closedminded.
First off in 4e, they added to the proliferation of multiple attacks, which just bogged down the game. Their healing was at best comparible to the Clerics, at worse, lacking.
They are also not what their name implies, they are not barbarian horde leaders. They are micromanaging bosses, cheerleaders and movie directors, and frankly unnecessary in 5e.
I've tried to keep an open mind about the class, but nothing about it makes sense or appeals to me.
Actually, they're more like an NCO commanding a squad of troops. They didn't really bog the game down, as they gave up their actions to allow others to attack. If anything, they sped things up with greatly increased DPR.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 25, 2013 - 5:35PM
#132
|
Date Joined:
Aug 11, 2006
|
Actually, they're more like an NCO commanding a squad of troops. They didn't really bog the game down, as they gave up their actions to allow others to attack. If anything, they sped things up with greatly increased DPR.
Having played as a Battle Rager Fighter in LFR and having one of my friends be one? I can tell you, not they didn't. Because the math of the game is based on a certain amount of damage done, whether by all classes, or by granted attacks.
And if their troops die, NCO's are not relegated to basic attacks.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 25, 2013 - 5:41PM
#133
|
Date Joined:
Jan 29, 2005
|
Ive played with many Warlords. When they're granting the heavy hitters free attacks, things die quicker. Especially a Thief, Slayer, or Barbarian. If all their troops die, they weren't a very good leader, either. That is the archetype they embody, though. A field commander. They do it extremely well.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 26, 2013 - 2:05AM
#134
|
|
|
Actually, with the right power set the 4th Warlord was a GREAT hourde leader.
It's just that those weren't usually the best powers for small groups, so you didn't often see them being used in the typical adventuring party.
And, did you SERIOUSLY just argue that something you don't personally like shouldn't be in the game?
Seriously?
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 26, 2013 - 3:12AM
#135
|
Date Joined:
Aug 10, 2010
|
I would disagree that Warlords were ineffective as Fighters. In my last 4e campaign, he was the character that was constantly spitting out large amounts of damage - and allowing lots more damage to be done.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 26, 2013 - 4:14AM
#136
|
|
|
Yeah,
When I (rarely) get to PLAY, I LOVE wearing my Warlords secondary Striker on his sleeve.
Some rounds I outdamage the ranger.
Though, admittedly, not very often...
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 26, 2013 - 5:28AM
#137
|
Date Joined:
Jun 22, 2010
|
You could run a warlord in D&DN as pure AEDU if you really liked and figured out how to make the numbers work. Grab the 4th ed one, hack 10 levels off it and figure out how to shrink it down to a few pages. Maybe even start small with 5 levels and make it AED or something. Maybe give it a daily power to trigger a second wind so you basically can elet somone use a healing surge (25%hp+ 1d6 etc). It doesn't have to be a perfect 4th ed duplicate.
I doubt they would go full AEDU with the warlord, but you already see something similar to a minor action in 5E with the cleric and words of power.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 26, 2013 - 3:01PM
#138
|
|
|
There are already plenty of opportunities to manipulate mechanics within Next:
1: While overdone Advantage/Disadvantage could work well for enhancement of allies and disruption of enemies.
2: The "As You Take An Action" mechanic, while cumbersome, can allow for all kinds of rider effects to buff ally actions.
3: For more powerful Warlord effects the use of Reaction as an "opportunity cost" will be useful.
4: There are already plenty of "free" actions and Warlords simply adding movement or attacks alongside their own or instead of their own with a buff is entirely appropriate.
I can certainly see an AEU setting for the Warlord working out well.
While still avoiding the "badwrongfun" of Martial dailies (not that Barbarians don't violate this already...).
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 26, 2013 - 3:08PM
#139
|
Date Joined:
Sep 26, 2001
|
Heh, it's race/level limitations, it's arbitrary.  And there is a minimum INT to enter the class, and a benefit to having a 15 INT, FWIW.
See that's why I could never stand 2e. If you're gonna restric classes and such by race at least try to be semi-logical about which ones get matched up.
Thank you. I was trying to capture the feel of 2e. :>
I'm not as clear on 5e at this point, though, and it's hard to dream up a class. There's just no clear design paradigm to latch onto... Essentials, for instance, I didn't care for it, but it was quite easy to make new classes in the Essentials style, because that style was fairly trasparent. 3e, likewise, you had some concrete patterns - BAB, saves, skill points, spell progressions - to work with as a vague framework.
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? Join the Old Guard of 4e"You want The Tooth? You can't handle The Tooth!" - Dahlver-Nar. "If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly" - E. Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 26, 2013 - 3:16PM
#140
|
Date Joined:
Sep 26, 2001
|
[
First off in 4e, they added to the proliferation of multiple attacks, which just bogged down the game. Their healing was at best comparible to the Clerics, at worse, lacking.
Comparable with the Cleric was far from lacking. Even a tactical warlord, who in no way boosted his healing capacity beyond Insipring Word was adequate to fill that aspet of the role - and, the force multiplier such builds represented tended to reduce the need for healing, though such offense-as-defense is always a bit swingy.
But they in no way slowed the game by adding to multiple attack issues. Controllers, particularly the wizard, were the big culprit, there. They could really mess up an in-attentive DMs initiative tracking, though. On a few occassions I did see a DM call for the next initiative after the charcter /granted/ the attack by the Warlord, rather than the one after the Warlord.... One to fix that would have been to have the player of the Warlord actually resolve the attack. I don't think that'd've gone over well, though.
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? Join the Old Guard of 4e"You want The Tooth? You can't handle The Tooth!" - Dahlver-Nar. "If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly" - E. Gary Gygax
|
|
|
