|
1 year ago ::
Jan 13, 2012 - 2:51PM
#21
|
|
|
I would really like to see the warlord in 5e. It was a cool concept that I had a lot of fun playing. In every 3e game I played one person had to play a cleric in order for others to play whatever they wanted because the healing output was just better than the Druid or paladin or bard or anyone with UMD and healing items.
4e did a great job giving every class less reliance on others by allowing a lot of classes dip into roles that their class can't originally cover. Also it allowed the game to rely on having the cleric as part of every party by having other classes choose to fill the role of the leader.
I have been reding the legends and lore compilation and found some cool ideas in it that I hope 5e covers. It talks of healing powers as being a mechanical way of removing bad luck from the party. Which in it's most general sense mechanically it does. I think the next warlord should be able to prevent people from getting hurt by bad dice luck.
Where the cleric should be able to heal you after taking a tumble in a lit trap or getting hit with a critical from a flesh golem, the warlord should be able to train you to be prepared from these situations. With a gesture and a shout he can inspire the party to become something greater than themselves and when a trap spring the warlord can give a warning and give the party a bonus to saving throws or what not.
Mainly I am trying to say is that warlord can still lead like clerics but should be different mechanically and visually. Having both of them in the game but having different rules but manage the same roll to the party will only strengthen 5e while keeping the same streamlined roles of 4e.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 13, 2012 - 2:53PM
#22
|
|
|
Holy cow sorry for the errors I am on my phone. I will try to fix them when I get home.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 13, 2012 - 3:19PM
#23
|
Date Joined:
Dec 12, 2011
|
I can, however, see the Warlord being roled into the Fighter as a build that specializes in tactics.
Considering that I strongly feel that the number of base classes in the game should be reduced, I'm all for this. Fighters should be the kings of the battlefield, and there should be ways to customize the class to be a knight, swashbuckler, tactical warrior, etc.
The games language needs to better show that losing hit points != wounds and recovering them != auto stitching
My cynicism says that it could be put in big neon, flashing letters and people would still miss it. 
As for non-cleric healing... Why not just use the Heal skill to accomplish this?
Playtest or get off the playtest boards.
---
I want justice for the voice that can't be heard
Vindication for every suffering and hurt
Let retribution hold dominion over earth
--Nemesis, VNV Nation
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 14, 2012 - 10:06AM
#24
|
Date Joined:
Jul 18, 2009
|
The ridiculous fact that the warlord is somehow also a healer in 4E only strengthens my argument. It makes no sense whatseover in the context of D&D. Maybe it makes sense in WoW or some other game setting, but I have never heard of such a thing in all my life, and I've been playing D&D since I was a little kid in the 80's.
(Apparently, Cat already covered this point on Page 2. My bad for not reading through the whole thread before I replied.)
... You do realize that hit points are an abstraction, right? It's a measure of how long your character can keep going, despite the odds. When your characters get hit by a longsword, they aren't necessarily being skewered through the gut; when your characters get caught flat-footed, and take a hit from a Lurker's dagger, they aren't necessarily having their throats slashed; when your characters get caught in the blast of a fireball, they aren't necessarily cooked alive in their armour. If you've got 150 hit points, and an enemy's sword does around 10 per swing, then every time he scores a hit, he's just chipping away at your stamina. Every time your HP gets drained, your reactions get a little bit slower, until eventually you reach 0 (or below), and the enemy scores a critical strike that puts you down.
So, when a Warlord heals you, he's motivating you to go on. Have you ever been to the gym, or involved in a sports team? Training can be really rough, but if you've got a friend spotting you, and he's telling you that you're doing good, and that you just need to push out one last rep, it makes a huge difference. The Warlord, like your workout buddy, is there to inspire you and fill you with the confidence you need to keep going when you otherwise wouldn't be able to. His Inspiring Word power doesn't necessarily magically knit-up your wounds, or clear away your bruises -- he's simply inspiring you to stand up and take another shot.
I've said this a lot, lately, but try not to blame 4E for your inability to think outside the box.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 14, 2012 - 1:06PM
#25
|
Date Joined:
Jan 12, 2012
|
First of all, Warlords are awesome. One of the coolest things about 4e IMO.
And I do like that HP have always been partly luck, and now we have a way to reflect that in settings with no divine characters.
The tactician is an archetype that D&D had really been lacking up until 4th edition. I can increase the effectiveness of everyone else just by being around.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 14, 2012 - 2:20PM
#26
|
Date Joined:
Jan 12, 2012
|
You do realize that hit points are an abstraction, right? It's a measure of how long your character can keep going, despite the odds.
Of course, and we've always seen it that way. You do nice job of explaining the abstract nature of hit points with the rest of your post, but you are preaching to the choir, as that's how we already see it (we play SAGA, after all).
But that has nothing to do with what I was saying.
I've said this a lot, lately, but try not to blame 4E for your inability to think outside the box.
I am well outside of the little 4E box, thank you very much. Obviously you have completely missed the point of what I was saying. We simply don't need an entirely new base class that has no canonical precedent just to fill such a narrow, prescribed role. There are much easier (and more logical) ways to do it.
I'd also like to see it rolled into the fighter as a build (or two), or maybe just a collection of powers that the fighter can access. I can see one obvious collection of powers for tactics, and another for motivation.
I agree with you guys, as that sounds like the most reasonable solution by far. Fighters could have access to certain kinds of talent trees in order to do those things, and that would solve the problem of having too many extraneous base classes.
Leadership and class choice should have NOTHING to do with each other, EVER.
Conflating the two is simply horrendous game design.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 14, 2012 - 2:35PM
#27
|
Date Joined:
Jul 18, 2009
|
I certainly don't think the Warlord's unnecessary; he does a great job of highlighting a lot of the new options we have in 4E. It's easily one of my favorite Leader classes (I prefer Martial character roles, personally), and probably one of my favorite classes presented in 4E. Having said that, who knows how 5E will pan out? I'd ideally like to see Wizards reduce the total number of classes, and allow players to build upon really basic concepts.
Instead of having dozens of classses to choose from, it'd be nice if we had, say, 4 core concepts: something like Warrior, Thief, Magic-User, and Cleric. These are fairly broad concepts; broad enough to expand upon in pretty much any direction. A player who chooses the Warrior archetype would choose from a huge list of Warrior powers, and might end up building his character in any number of ways. Maybe my Warrior would be focused on speed and heavy weapons (something like a Barbarian), while another was more focused on tactical-positioning and battlefield control (something like a Fighter), while another still might be focused on leadership and support (there's your Warlord), etc.
I think that'd be great. It'll be really interesting to see how it pans out.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 16, 2012 - 4:21AM
#28
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2003
|
I like the idea of a warlord pretty much.
One thing of 4e that I found refreshing was the possibility to have themed groups, such as groups that are based on one singular power source. Want a world without magic? - Use an all-martial group. Want a primitive, spiritual setting? - go all primal. Want to play in Netheril? Yay, all-arcane.
I do not find the idea of having older characters ridiculous. Using that as an argument you'd have to erase the whole Deva race. The warlord represents a tactical genius, the one who is trained in inspiring people and letting them control the battlefield. Think about characters like Cesare Borgia or Shikamaru, they are your young warlords.
What we need in 5e is both a revamp of older "classic" concepts like the canonical fighter or cleric and an addition of newer stuff that had a lot of fans. And by that I do not mean "we're catering to flashy concepts so we might attract the kids". I'm looking at you, Tiefling, Warlock and Dragonborn... ( I loved the 3e DB so I might be biased here^^)
|
|
|
