|
8 months ago ::
Sep 29, 2012 - 10:07PM
#51
|
Date Joined:
Oct 26, 2004
|
Even with the marshal you can't make a warlord in 3e.
Bhaelfire, no, you gotta do better than that if you wanna make your case.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 30, 2012 - 12:15AM
#52
|
|
|
However, I also believe it sidles up a little too closely with other classes.
Yes, it's more than an agressive bard, a fighty cleric, or a bossy fighter, but the fact that it can be referred to that way- in relation to so many other classes- tells me that it might not quite be enough for its own, full, Core Class.
Prestige Class Warlord, on the other hand, has a LOT of appeal to me.
For a startoff we aren't yet 100% sure that Prestige classes will even make it into Next.
Secondly, it's no answer to wanting to play a Warlord... only to playing a multi-class Warlord, cross-class Warlord or hybrid Warlord. I love playing Warlords from level one to five, not likely to be an option if a Prestige class Warlord is my only possibility.
Thirdly, as has already been pointed out, the "I can make that concept using another class" idea is flawed. On that basis we really only need a "Warrior" and "Magic-User" class and EVERYTHING else is just an option within those classes.
Lastly, I'm 100% in support of Prestige Class and Speciality options to produce Warlords, as long as I get a Warlord class as well.
In an optional world... especially one where Classes themselves are established as "modular options"... Warlord must be a class or many people will be denied an opportunity they consider essential to a satisfying experience in Next.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 30, 2012 - 12:27AM
#53
|
Date Joined:
Oct 26, 2004
|
More importantly wizards will miss out on the cash from the warlord fanboys, and we are legion. lol
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 30, 2012 - 1:12AM
#54
|
|
|
More importantly wizards will miss out on the cash from the warlord fanboys, and we are legion. lol
But are they more concerned with getting the cash from the people who will refuse to buy anything that has options they don't like in it?
Taken from this forum, it seems there are more people who consider including certain things ("Non-Vancian" Casters, Warlords, Non-tolkien Races) deal breakers than people who consider their exclusion deal breakers.
We must always be ready to accept that D&D for everyone means D&D for everyone other than us.
I have an answer for you, it may even be the truth.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 30, 2012 - 1:21AM
#55
|
|
|
We must always be ready to accept that D&D for everyone means D&D for everyone other than us.
I refuse to accept that.
And, more importantly, if Wizards want Next to be more successful than 4th Edition THEY can't accept that either.
They need as many of us as possible, that means being inclusive not exclusive.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 30, 2012 - 1:30AM
#56
|
Date Joined:
Oct 26, 2004
|
The problem being that we want things like class balance, races that aren't boring and/or pigeonholed into a handful of classes, martial classes that get as much love attention and cool stuff as casters, casters that don't have spell lists longer than the rest of the parties entire character sheets, spells that don't invalidate/replace entire skills, and in-depth tactical combat.
Which is really not in synch with the whole "bring back the madness" feel i get from these boards sometimes.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 30, 2012 - 1:42AM
#57
|
|
|
The problem being that we want things like class balance,
Races that aren't boring and/or pigeonholed into a handful of classes,
Martial classes that get as much love attention and cool stuff as casters,
Casters that don't have spell lists longer than the rest of the parties entire character sheets,
Spells that don't invalidate/replace entire skills,
And in-depth tactical combat.
And we need to keep telling Wizards that these things are important to us.
Because for every one of us posting on these boards there are thousands more out there in the wider community.
If Wizards wants us to buy then they had damn well better include the things that we want in the game.
It's EASY for people to REMOVE things they don't like.
It's IMPOSSIBLE for people to ADD things to D&D... they can only ever home-brew half-cocked cover-ups which will never have the detail or design advantages of real material.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 30, 2012 - 2:03AM
#58
|
Date Joined:
Oct 26, 2004
|
By that logic there are similarly thousands more who would prefer that the game be rendered unplayable to us.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 30, 2012 - 2:09AM
#59
|
|
|
By that logic there are similarly thousands more who would prefer that the game be rendered unplayable to us.
And to those people I say, why do you want to deny me D&D, when we can BOTH have our D&D with no harm to you?
Because they had better have a damn good answer.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 30, 2012 - 5:12AM
#60
|
Date Joined:
Aug 17, 2007
|
The problem being that we want things like class balance, races that aren't boring and/or pigeonholed into a handful of classes, martial classes that get as much love attention and cool stuff as casters, casters that don't have spell lists longer than the rest of the parties entire character sheets, spells that don't invalidate/replace entire skills, and in-depth tactical combat.
Which is really not in synch with the whole "bring back the madness" feel i get from these boards sometimes.
I'm much more a fan of 3.5 than 4, which I really didn't enjoy the system of (nor did our group), leading us to use a myriad of different rp systems.
Despite this, I very much agree with your list. I think the class balance needs some tweak but so far is good, I concur about martial classes and think the fighter is off to a good start (but don't want it to essentially duplicate the caster's stuff).
I only disagree in that I think the casters should have the potential for spell list that's quite extensive if they want, though.
'That's just, like, your opinion, man.'
|
|
|
