|
3 months ago ::
Feb 27, 2013 - 12:54AM
#141
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2012
|
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.
So let me get this straight. X -> Y, you don't like Y, so !X. huh? I'm not a great fan of the warlord either and wouldn't miss it if it went, but that doesn't mean there's no design space for it and it can't be good. I agree that the 4e warlord mostly served to slow things down, but that doesn't mean all warlords ever created always will. I think getting pissy about the fact that the warlord isn't some barbarian horde leader is just petty. It's missing the point and undermining your legitimate crticisms of the warlord class.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 27, 2013 - 1:10AM
#142
|
Date Joined:
Oct 26, 2004
|
It wasn't multiple attacks bogging down 4e combat, in fact it wasn't really any one thing.
Mostly though it was the fact that every class now had cool stuff to do, and important decisions to make with regards to when and where to do them. Yes most classes took a bit longer turn than previously, but that's because they were actually impacting the battle now instead of just hoping that the DM left his tactics at the door and lets them distract the monsters long enough for the wizard to get off his next doom spell. So everyone else's turns got a bit longer, and the wizard/cleric/druid turns got a little shorter.
Furthermore the slow down fades as people learn the system, and their abilities, just like any other game.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 27, 2013 - 1:21AM
#143
|
Date Joined:
Aug 28, 2007
|
I think people get too hooked on classes names(yeah some dont make total sense. Do you go around calling yourself Bob the warlord when your playing?
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 27, 2013 - 1:26AM
#144
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2012
|
I think people get too hooked on classes names(yeah some dont make total sense. Do you go around calling yourself Bob the warlord when your playing?
I didn't before, but now I will. "Bob the Warlord" has a nice ring to it.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 27, 2013 - 1:46AM
#145
|
Date Joined:
Oct 26, 2004
|
Well it depends on the class honestly.
Fighter or rogue for example were rarely on any in-character resume, but wizard, cleric, monk, sorceror, or bard? Yeah people loved to introduce themselves by their class title. Warlord was about 50-50 depending on back story, and they tended to use it more often as they climbed in level.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 27, 2013 - 2:43AM
#146
|
|
|
It's definitely on the left end of the fighter-wizard sliding scale of in-world class-name usage. Part of that is that it seems to inspire a lot of more offbeat concepts. Warlords I've played alongside or DM'd for are split about evenly between "military officer" types and right-turn concepts like gang leader, professor or empath. (The empath managed to die the same week that the Ardent, a class that takes the "Empathetic Warlord" thing to eleven and to a specificially supernatural place, arrived with PHB3. It felt poetic.)
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer.
"Feel free to claim I said anything you like. How's someone going to call you out on it? Are they going to be all like, 'I know all of the things that Gary said, and that's not one of them?'"
- Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 27, 2013 - 2:45AM
#147
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2012
|
It wasn't multiple attacks bogging down 4e combat, in fact it wasn't really any one thing.
Mostly though it was the fact that every class now had cool stuff to do, and important decisions to make with regards to when and where to do them. Yes most classes took a bit longer turn than previously, but that's because they were actually impacting the battle now instead of just hoping that the DM left his tactics at the door and lets them distract the monsters long enough for the wizard to get off his next doom spell. So everyone else's turns got a bit longer, and the wizard/cleric/druid turns got a little shorter.
Furthermore the slow down fades as people learn the system, and their abilities, just like any other game.
I don't think you're wrong but I think the thing that makes the warlord stand out in 4e as a slow down is that all the extra actions made folks double their decision time. Also, healing slows combat down generally so that's just a no-brainer.
If you've got 3 people all taking time with decisions that are important and so they're slowing down the game, adding in 4th that, in addition to their own decision making process, is adding more decisions for another player to make, then you've just increased your time making decisions in the round by 66% (from 3 decision points to 5), and that's assuming you don't have anything like reactions or surprise rounds or other mechanics to resolve in that time. It doesn't include monsters either. So that's really the trouble. I don't really mind the warlord as a class - I think it's one of the cooler ideas in D&D since I saw the marshal - but it did exaserbate many of the latent issues with 4e because of how it solved problems. Still, my main point was that an "automatic ban" regardless of the context is ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 27, 2013 - 9:45AM
#148
|
Date Joined:
Oct 26, 2004
|
Oh I agreeon that point I just think it's unfair to point warlord out as a log jam since my experience is that he shortens fights, remember the extra actions granted by the warlord are generally very specific and do not actually require much decision making on the part of the other players.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 27, 2013 - 10:06AM
#149
|
Date Joined:
Mar 26, 2007
|
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.
I find 5th Ed the easiest of all editions to date.
And converting classes is a breeze, things like the 3rd Ed Factotum and Incarnate port in so easily.
I also designed an Elf class, ala Basic.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 27, 2013 - 10:07AM
#150
|
Date Joined:
Mar 26, 2007
|
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.
I find 5th Ed the easiest of all editions to date.
And converting classes is a breeze, things like the 3rd Ed Factotum and Incarnate port in so easily.
I also designed an Elf class, ala Basic.
|
|
|
