|
7 months ago ::
Nov 15, 2012 - 11:13AM
#71
|
Date Joined:
Aug 18, 2007
|
Actually, related to your point #2, I'd rather see the Wizard class removed, or at least drastically cut down into maybe the "Evoker" or something exactly to make room for Summoner, Beguiler, Necromancer, and so on.
Anyway, think that the Warlord is more deserving of a spot than Paladin or Ranger. Maybe if the Cleric were more limited to the cloth-wearing white mage archetype that's an actual thing rather than the heavily armored crusader that is the D&D invention, I could see the point in having a Paladin. As for Ranger, I don't see the point in its staying unless they just go ahead and make it either the Archer class or Beastmaster class rather than have is straddle some weird, unnecessary line between martial Druid and primal Rogue... Hmm, I guess my problem with these classes, though, is more that they need to undergo heavy redefinition rather than that they need to be removed completely... Still, the point remains that the Warlord is more solid than they are.
That is only because 4e ruined the ranger class. Ranger was a very solid class until 4e came along and stripped it down. Ranger should retain the status it had in previous editions. Make Warlord an attachement to the bard. Of course Warlord has always been in D&D but they were simply fighters with a keep.
CAMRA preserves and protects real ale from the homogenization of modern beer production.
D&D Grognards are the CAMRA of D&D!
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 15, 2012 - 11:15AM
#72
|
Date Joined:
Feb 24, 2008
|
Personally, I think this thread is a travesty. If I can't have warlord, let's champion axing other classes. It's a bad, negative premise for a discussion in my opinion. But, I guess it does illustrate the human mindset. Time to go back to the mothership with a recommendation of wiping out the species. 
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 15, 2012 - 11:23AM
#73
|
Date Joined:
Oct 23, 2012
|
I've never seen so much insecurity. Does Mike always need to tell you guys that your butt doesn't look too big in that skirt, for you not to get offended?
People involved in serious game design MUST try to look objectively (even if they like them) at the classes, and ask critical questions that legitamize a classes existance. Trying to re-legitamize a classes existance doesn't mean it might get scrapped. It means it might get better and more important and more unique.
Asking questions about the overlaps between the Bard and warlord shouldn't make you say, "My warlord isn't no stupid bard!" It should make you say "Awesome, they are going to be finding ways to make the Bard and warlord more distinct." These are good questions becuase they lead to the ideas that really start to create the most unique and creative solutions to class individuality.
You can unlock the bathroom door now....
My mind is a deal-breaker.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 15, 2012 - 12:01PM
#74
|
|
|
No PH1 classes should be cut before or after the Warlord but should all be in there as R&D said.
I want all PH1 classes in the next iteration of D&D!
They backpeddled on that, during the hangout. They said they will be "represented" and that doesn't neccesarily mean they will be a class.
The modular components arent trusted yet... I personally see Rangers and Paladins both as building better if at their core they are a fighter..
Delayed response I know, but I have been avoiding this thread mostly.
Would having them both as builds under fighter, stop you from multi-class them?
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? join the Old Guard of 4th EditionReality Refracted: Social ContractsD & D: A Documentary Kickstarter ( http://kck.st/SyKNzf) 
Dreaming the Impossible Dream
Show
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
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 15, 2012 - 12:14PM
#75
|
Date Joined:
Jul 19, 2012
|
And a thread was made as a precursor to the warlord's birth and the people were wrathful that the warlord might not become a class
And the grognards became wrathful that it might become a class.
Then the warlord was created by WotC and the people became joyous
And the grognards were wrathful.
When the people read what the warlord had become and had not become became wrathful and shouted unto the heavens "This is completely pants! This is not the warlord"
And the grognards were wrathful.
And then it was changed and WotC declared unto the masses "Fixed"
And grognards cried "This is not a real class. This is just a fighter that stole stuff from the cleric. This should be a paladin specialty.
And where is my Illusionist?"
And then threads were created by the people bemoaning the fixes that they were not the fixes that should have been the fixes
And the grognards bemoaned the inclusion of the warlord
And created threads to wax their wrathfulness...
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 15, 2012 - 12:41PM
#76
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
No PH1 classes should be cut before or after the Warlord but should all be in there as R&D said.
I want all PH1 classes in the next iteration of D&D!
They backpeddled on that, during the hangout. They said they will be "represented" and that doesn't neccesarily mean they will be a class.
The modular components arent trusted yet... I personally see Rangers and Paladins both as building better if at their core they are a fighter..
Delayed response I know, but I have been avoiding this thread mostly.
Would having them both as builds under fighter, stop you from multi-class them?
Having some difficulties parsing this or remembering where we were ... the recent Paladin in 4e is its own class and a gishy one but where its fighter like abililites are integrated with its magicness they feel less fighter like ... The 4e Ranger is much closer to being a flavor of fighter in 4e. and I kind of like the Ranger that way since I can multi-class or theme or use ritual training to give nature spells or rituals independent of its main elements.
In part I have a 1e prejudice on Paladins and Rangers mechanically the fighter in 5e is distinct but having a few special abilities like the 1e Paladin is almost like I dont know a fighter with feats. Many of the characters in history and myth with Paladin like Oaths were not flavored exactly like a Paladin...not with the Knight Armor... Some were high end mobility fighters and Some were Grappler strong men... ie the the Oaths Granting Boones and Blessings is separate element of the story and important but not a definition of the fighting style.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 15, 2012 - 1:00PM
#77
|
Date Joined:
Mar 26, 2007
|
Seriously of all the proposed classes for 5e the warlord attracts all the haters despite being one of the most distinct and viable class concepts in the game's history. Frankly it's more in need of it's own class than any of the classes outside the core 4, and in all honestly probably beats out the cleric from a mythology/fiction standpoint.
Why do you believe that?
I think the warlord is one of the most derivative of pretty much all classes, so, I'm sure if they stuff it into 5th Ed it will be a vaguely disguised fighter variant with ED (manoeuvres) to heal people.
The Marshall was stretching it enough, please, let this class of 4 years fade.
But I suspect (hope) some New Coke action will happen anyway.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 15, 2012 - 1:01PM
#78
|
|
|
Having some difficulties parsing this or remembering where we were ... the recent Paladin in 4e is its own class and a gishy one but where its fighter like abililites are integrated with its magicness they feel less fighter like ... The 4e Ranger is much closer to being a flavor of fighter in 4e. and I kind of like the Ranger that way since I can multi-class or theme or use ritual training to give nature spells or rituals independent of its main elements.
In part I have a 1e prejudice on Paladins and Rangers mechanically the fighter in 5e is distinct but having a few special abilities like the 1e Paladin is almost like I dont know a fighter with feats. Many of the characters in history and myth with Paladin like Oaths were not flavored exactly like a Paladin...not with the Knight Armor... Some were high end mobility fighters and Some were Grappler strong men... ie the the Oaths Granting Boones and Blessings is separate element of the story and important but not a definition of the fighting style.
Sorry I didn't clearly state my question, but you did answer it indrectly. I meant if paladin and rangers become archtyes under the fighter would that eliminate the option of multiclass as a ranger/paladin.
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? join the Old Guard of 4th EditionReality Refracted: Social ContractsD & D: A Documentary Kickstarter ( http://kck.st/SyKNzf)
Dreaming the Impossible Dream
Show
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
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 15, 2012 - 1:25PM
#79
|
|
|
I think every non-PHB class (from any edition) is definetly on the chopping block before the warlord and has to make a very convincing case for inclusion.
(Exceptions:
Assassin. A PHB class that really does not need to exist as a class, although it should certainly exist as an option. Advanced Class or stealing the flavour of ninjas and applying that.
Swordmage. There are a half-dozen gish classes from 3e-4e alone. The probably needs to come out. )
Whether the warlord should come out sooner or later... that's not for one person to decide. Saying "the warlord is better than X" is putting your personal preference above someone else's. It's easy to draw the line and say "warlord before any secondary classes" because it isn't singling out any one choice or preference, and is just seperating the first tier classes that have been in a PHB and those that haven't.
Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: What Would Wrecan Say? Spoiler:
Show
My Webcomic
Updated Tuesday and Thursday
Read my blog on the WotC Community Site (updated irregularly to avoid spamming the "Featured Blogger" list).
You can follow me on Twitter: "@DnDJester"
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 15, 2012 - 1:28PM
#80
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
Personally, I think this thread is a travesty. If I can't have warlord, let's champion axing other classes. It's a bad, negative premise for a discussion in my opinion.
Without the Ultimate Armor called Tradition the rationale for many classes iare weak and often weaker than the Warlord.
The claim is that Mearls is trying to set up a standard which is a travesty itself.
|
|
|
