Community

Nov 14, 2012 -- 7:03AM, dmgorgon wrote:

well I wouldn't design the warlord with a memorization mechanic.    The Monk class might be a good template for the warlord.   His powers seem magical, but they work on some principle that is supernatural.     I'd be fine with the warlord being a martial class, I'd just like to see powers that heal wounds to have a supernatural basis.

I'd prefer that the warlord's "healing" grant temporary hit points and be described not as healing but as motiva5ting people to ignore the pain.  Totally nonmagical.

I'm not suggesting that the warlord actually cast spells or have to memorize them.   For example, the Paladin's lay on hands ability is not a spell, but it is magical.

We have yet to see how lay on hands will be implemented as we have no Next version of the paladin.  Based on the monk, I might surmise that the paladin will be given expertise dice which he can use for his at-will powers like detect evil and smite and then also be given spell memorization for his daily abilities, which may include an option to spontaneously convert any spell into a lay on hands healing.

Nov 14, 2012 -- 7:29AM, dmgorgon wrote:

The clerics turn undead ability was a spell and now it isn't.  I'd expect the same for the paladin.  

As for temp hit points,  we do have the spell Aid.     

We'll see.  We've gotten very far afield.  But from what I gather, your position on warlords is as follows:

You claim that you think a warlord can be included.  Yet...
You don't want any healing powers to be included except as a spell, even temporary hp
You don't think any action granting powers will be included in Next
You don't think any movement granting powers will be included in Next

Since you've eliminated all the warlord's signature abilities, except the relatively minor quality of granting flat bonuses, and that's what bards primarily do, the warlord should be folded into the bard (who can be allowed to use magical healing).

 Whcih is why i don't think you actually want a warlrod to be included.  You don't want (or can't imagine) any of the warlord's distinguishing mechanics -- the ones that make the warlord distinct from bards and clerics -- to be included in the game.  When you strip down what you would personally accept, we're left with a non-singing skald.  

But I don't accept that the loss of martial healing, as long as it is in the form of temporary hit points.  I don't accept the loss of action and movement granting powers.  So my vision of a warlord does not look like a non-singing skald.  It looks like a warlord.

I've stated this previously, though it bears repeating: all of the overlap issues with regard to the warlord and bard can be traced back to the insistence upon the shared term 'inspiration'.

The bard has been inspiring his allies to be bigger and better at what they do for decades, so leave him alone and let him keep his stuff. The 'charismatic hero' bit is covered.
The warlord has been offering his tactical insight and strategic ingenuity since his debut, and it's the only truly unique thing he does, so emphasize it and run with it. There's plainly unclaimed space for the 'intelligent hero with a weapon' bit.

We keep on this whole 'charisma-based commander/leader of people/intimdating' racket and this debate will never end (ever). The warlord is a tactician. That much is his and his alone. Those fond of warlords are being presented with a wonderful opportunity to differentiate, define, and mold a class that has uncontested reason for existing. -- Choose your battles.

If you would like your tactical genius to also be charismatic, the game fully accomodates this, but the warlord should be first and foremost a class of genius ingenuity and tactical prowess. His allies may listen to him because he's an effective leader (CHA), because he has a deep sense for the spirit of combat (WIS), or because he exemplifies his knowledge with physicality (CON/STR/DEX), but the reason they trust him is due to the fact that he understands what they don't (INT).

The core warlord should reference inspiration as a tertiary capability (if at all), lest he forever bear the prejudice of being a 'bard without the lute and magic' who's reason for existence requires endless defending in sour internet threads.

Nov 14, 2012 -- 8:16AM, dmgorgon wrote:

Nov 14, 2012 -- 7:52AM, wrecan wrote:

You don't want any healing powers to be included except as a spell, even temporary hp

I don't want healing to be non-supernatural in nature.

That's what I wrote!!!

The game must respect all playstyles.  Therefore, any warlord that heals without the aid of magic or some other supernatural force is playstyle specific and invalid in the core.

That's nto how modularity works and if you continue to carry this misconception with you, you are inevitably going to be disappointed and connfused by how Next is shaping up.  

Each maneuver is a modular options.  If the warlord has the option of healing, you can disallow those options in your game.  Simply tell someone that they cannot take the warlord maneuvers that allow healing.  Just like how someone who doesn't like how the fighter's parry works (which was an actual complaint) can disallow that menuver in the game.  Since maneuvers are all modular options, it's easy to disallow them.

That way, the warlord can be martial and have healign, and you can still allow the class in your game by disallowing those options you don't like.  Everyone wins.

Nov 14, 2012 -- 8:16AM, dmgorgon wrote:

Nov 14, 2012 -- 7:52AM, wrecan wrote:

You don't think any action granting powers will be included in Next

I don't think that your mechanical (4e concept) of what a Warlord is will be the same in next.  

You specifically said that you did not believe action granting would be in Next.

Nov 14, 2012 -- 8:16AM, dmgorgon wrote:

Nov 14, 2012 -- 7:52AM, wrecan wrote:

You don't think any movement granting powers will be included in Next

Never said that.  

you specifically said action granting would not be in Next.  Movement is a type of action.

The problem with your argument is that they both grant bonuses, extra actions, and movement in 4e.p

That's not a problem with the argument.  It's a problem that you simply have almost no experience in 4e so when ppeople point stuff out you fundamentally don't understand it.

Warlords had very few flat-bonus powers.  So saying that warlords grant bonuses is only true in the most hypertechnical sense and completely ignores what the class is about.  It is only an argument that makes sense to someone who is arguing from their conclusions.

They are still built on the same chassis.

Every class in 4e was built on the same chassis.  There fore, this cannot be the basis of any valuid argument.

The fact is, I could create a base class called Wordmaster and derive the bard and the warlord from it.

The fact is we can all do a lot of things that don't make any logical sense.  That you can do something is not evidence of why doing it is a good idea.  You keep retreating to this enormously vacuous statements whenever you provide specific because your specific are awful and irrational.  SAnd when pointed out you just retreat into that turtle shell of looking at classes from the wrong en of a spyglass and declaring they all look like dots to you.

I dont' really care what powers the warlord is granted or how those powers function.

That's clearly untrue, since your entire position is framed from your distaste of martial healing and your disbelief that Next will contain action-granting powers.  If you didn't care, then this wouldn't be an issue in any way.  But you started a whoel thread based on this issue!

Lastly, I don't accept martial healing as a concept to being with.  Therefore any class that has martial healing (non-supernartual / non-magical) is unacceptable for my playstyle.  

So disallow all martial healign powers.  That's how modularity works.  It's not a veto on an entire class. It's much more granular thatn that.

But I suspect that's unacceptable to you because you're using your distaste for martial healing as a stalking horse to dismantle the warlord entirely.

Nov 14, 2012 -- 8:29AM, dmgorgon wrote:

@mrpopstar

Yes, both of these 'word master' classes do share some similarities.

Let the bard create a pool of XD with his music that allies can draw upon when taking an action (a la the 4E skald).
Let the warlord spend XD in response to situations as they present themselves during enemy actions (i.e. enemy misses with an attack and warlord can expend XD to offer targeted ally an action, etc.) or ally advantages (i.e. ally gains advantage and warlord can expend XD to offer ally a rider on their action, etc.).

In these ways, the singing/orating/speaking bard is the 'word master' (as he's always been), and the warlord contributes via his interaction with the battle (using words, gestures, attacks, etc.). If you take away the whole 'warlord is inspiring me to do stuff' thing, the awkward 'word master' moniker no longer applies.

It seems like CS dice are common framework for fighting types (even rogues). It would be nice if a common framework was built for these clases too.

A common framework would only contribute to more sameness.