If we go back to 4 classes can we nuke the cleric and let the warlord be number 4?
I'd be willing to support a 4 class model if it was Wizard, Rogue, Fighter, and Warlord.
Personally I'd even be willing to drop the Rogue, rolling its skill stuff into the Fighter to give it a versatility boost, and keep Cleric. Then, Wizard is Magical Offense/Utility. Fighter is Mundane Offense/Utility. Cleric is Magical Defense/Buffing. Warlord. is Mundane Defense/Buffing.
You, sir, are on to something.
I definitely feel like if we are going to go back to four classes (and kill D&D in the process), the Rogue and the Fighter should be combined. The Rogue's schtick of being "Skills Guy" is not a very worthwhile schtick. Turn Sneak Attack into a Combat Superiority option (as it should be). Though honestly, if they deconstructed the game that far, there really would be no need for the Warlord. You would just have Mundane Guy, Magic Guy, and Holy Guy.
I have talked at length about why the Warlord should be a class. Simply put, it occupies the same space as the Rogue does. Both the Rogue and the Warlord are Fighter-type character that focuses on one aspect of fighting. In the case of the Rogue, it is a Fighter that uses Stealth or Subterfuge to gain the upper hand on an enemy in combat, and uses skill tricks out of combat. The Warlord is a Fighter that uses tactics to allow their allies to gain the upper hand in combat, but can function as a healer and party face out of combat. Why does the Rogue get a pass for being similar to the Fighter but the Warlord does not? Tradition? Frak tradition. The Rogue wasn't its own class in OD&D, why should it be now? Any argument that the Rogue should remain a class in spite of it not initially being one applies equally to the Warlord.
What about the Rogue CAN'T be done using Specialties and Backgrounds. Heck, one of their class features IS a background!
If we go back to 4 classes can we nuke the cleric and let the warlord be number 4?
I'd be willing to support a 4 class model if it was Wizard, Rogue, Fighter, and Warlord.
Personally I'd even be willing to drop the Rogue, rolling its skill stuff into the Fighter to give it a versatility boost, and keep Cleric. Then, Wizard is Magical Offense/Utility. Fighter is Mundane Offense/Utility. Cleric is Magical Defense/Buffing. Warlord. is Mundane Defense/Buffing.
+0.75.
Rogue's "skill guy" and "sneaky guy + sneak attack" should be a specialties. No reason you shouldn't be able to have a sneaky wizard or cleric.
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way. Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken. Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken. King Fisher Does an excellent job at keeping an enemy disabled in a few ways. Strong. Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading. Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered. Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square. Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong. Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked. Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic. Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation. Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses. Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat. Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent. Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof. Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it. Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways. Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful. The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken. Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken Unnamed Avenger|Runepriest/Hammer of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered. Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5. Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong. Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight, only far more broken. Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken. Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.
I find the idea that the warlord doesn't occupy enough space to make a full class to be completely, unequivocally absurd.
Honestly, I think there are a lot of people on this forum that never played a Warlord, or 4E for that matter. I like it. (obv. see sig.)
Warlords are an integral part of the fantasy mythos, in my opinion. They are EVERYWHERE in literature and movies.
Aragorn was AD&D ranger through and through, but 4E? He was channeling a lot of Warlord at Helm's Deep, when confronting the Dead Men of Dunharrow, and outside the gates of Mordor.
Should it be a specialty, or prestige class? Well, I am alright with choices for it to be one, just like I like the choice of "Majoring" with a Class of Wizard and "minoring" with a specialty of thief.
Does it have enough meat to be its own class. Absolutely. Its not too hard to imagine how they could impact all three pillars of the game in a unique way.
Seems like community isn't going to give up calling mapless "Theatre of the Mind". In the interest of equal pretentiousness, I'd like to start a motion to refer to map combat as "Tableau Vivant".
I've said elsewhere that using specialties to fill in classes is a bad idea and I stick by my guns on that one.
Ultimately you'll lose a whole chunk of variety as all the warlords are unable to take feats associated with a fighting style or augment their "magical" abilities (not letting that one go, either).
Also, what happens when they give us the rules that let us hand pick feats? Are some of these features too strong to allow anyone to take? Even if they aren't, then what happens if someone wants to play a warlord that focuses on one aspect of their package than another? Feats are arguably the best vehicle for that kind of focus, but you've tied them all up in becoming a warlord in the first place.
heck, while you're at it just roll offense and defense together, then you can have 'magical guy' and 'mundane guy'.
and lets roll all those redundant spells together - just have 'melee attack spell' and 'ranged attack spell', and base utility spells on the skill system. In fact, why differentiate mechanically between magic and mundane actions? Also, if we're ditching the minis, why bother differentiating between ranged and melee attacks?
Every character can have 'attack', and 'skill use', and they can fluff it as weapons or spells as they like, and then we can have just one class, 'adventurer guy'.
In fact, attacks and skills both work of d20 rolls, why bother differentiating them? And ability scores, just fluff how you do what you do however you like, no need to differentiate between strength and wisdom.
We can just have one class that everyone plays with a single 'competance' stat which gives a bonus to the universal "do stuff" roll.
heck, while you're at it just roll offense and defense together, then you can have 'magical guy' and 'mundane guy'.
and lets roll all those redundant spells together - just have 'melee attack spell' and 'ranged attack spell', and base utility spells on the skill system. In fact, why differentiate mechanically between magic and mundane actions? Also, if we're ditching the minis, why bother differentiating between ranged and melee attacks?
Every character can have 'attack', and 'skill use', and they can fluff it as weapons or spells as they like, and then we can have just one class, 'adventurer guy'.
In fact, attacks and skills both work of d20 rolls, why bother differentiating them? And ability scores, just fluff how you do what you do however you like, no need to differentiate between strength and wisdom.
We can just have one class that everyone plays with a single 'competance' stat which gives a bonus to the universal "do stuff" roll.
Sounds like 3:16 rpg, but they use a d10 in that system.
Imagine a world where the first-time D&D player rolls stats, picks a race, picks a class, picks an alignment, and buys gear to create a character. Imagine if an experienced player, maybe the person helping our theoretical player learn the ropes, could also make a character by rolling ability scores and picking a race, class, feat, skills, class features, spells or powers, and so on. Those two players used different paths to build characters, but the system design allows them to play at the same table. -Mearl
So, to review, I've conceded that a Warlord or Marshal (I actually prefer the name Marshal for the class, come to the subject, mainly because linguistically Lord is masculine and Warlady doesn't sound right. Marshal is gender-neutral) has too many facets to do properly and/or fully realize with a Specialty. That being said, there's an obvious demand for the class. The question I am pondering now is, Class or Prestige Class?
As a Class, with the current design goals, a Marshal would need its own in-class mechanic/dynamic to feel different from other classes. I can already imagine a "leadership style" similar to a fighting style or rogue scheme: Tactical (positioning allies) Inspirational (buffing allies) There's probably a few more possible, but two's enough to start with. So how would they work, to feel different from other classes? Perhaps they'd be the one class that can do stuff on other people's turns. Most people can't do that, much, in D&DN so far, so it would stick out. It also makes sense, because a lot of what a leader does is either reactive, and such a mechanic would represent that very well.
Okay, you know what? I'm sold. The more I think about it, the more I think the Marshal would make a pretty good Class, not even needing to be a Prestige Class. I do, however, think a Marshal would be most effective, especially a tactical Marshal, in a minis-&-grid game, which the Core D&DN rules will not presuppose. We may have to wait a bit to see the class. But I feel the demand is high enough we'll see it.
"Our idea of rules modules has a wide range of scope; sometimes, our rules modules might just be small tweaks and variant rules, while other times they could be large-scale changes and entirely new subsystems. We want people to make the game their own, and that means provided a whole array of possibilities based on what you, the players, tell us that you want." -D&DNext Q&A Blog, 8/29/12, Answer #3.
So, to review, I've conceded that a Warlord or Marshal (I actually prefer the name Marshal for the class, come to the subject, mainly because linguistically Lord is masculine and Warlady doesn't sound right. Marshal is gender-neutral) has too many facets to do properly and/or fully realize with a Specialty. That being said, there's an obvious demand for the class. The question I am pondering now is, Class or Prestige Class?
While i agree with Martial for the name... It's definatly a class.
Now, you could have Prestige Class Martials. Like...
Pirate Captain (group bonus to ship warfare) Calvaray Insert_Leader_Name (group bonus to mounted warfare) Police Sergent (group bonus to paperwork) ect...
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way. Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken. Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken. King Fisher Does an excellent job at keeping an enemy disabled in a few ways. Strong. Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading. Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered. Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square. Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong. Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked. Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic. Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation. Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses. Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat. Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent. Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof. Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it. Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways. Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful. The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken. Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken Unnamed Avenger|Runepriest/Hammer of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered. Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5. Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong. Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight, only far more broken. Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken. Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.
Good call questor. I think its nice to see people debate and change their minds if needs be.
Shows to me you are open to suggestions and ideas and thats a great thing to go on, even if the internet enviroment is not the friendliest of all.
Btw, I had the same idea before coming to these forums. But when you think about it, and see people discussing them with such love... then there is definately space for a warlord class.
I think the warlord embodies what so many of us love about 4e all rolled up in one class. Having it as a core class will put that piece of what we love right there in front of us.
