|
7 months ago ::
Nov 15, 2012 - 10:06AM
#51
|
Date Joined:
Feb 13, 2012
|
As for the warlord, for my playstyle that class will also need magic to heal. I really only like using the hard core healing rules in 5e and for that reason the warlord class just won't work if it doesn't use magic.
So you want the class gone because it doesn't fit your playstyle? What about those of us for whom martial healing works just fine? What about those who find the Cleric class lacking? It has no genre roots, and the idea of calling upon divine miracles in every fight, then lazing about for 8 hours to get them back can be seen as pretty absurd. A lot more absurd than a strong leader's words inspiring a wounded or discouraged ally to get back up and fighting. The Warlord is a wonderful alternative to the Cleric for many campaigns.
And what is this so-called "playstyle" of yours, beyond anti-4e edition warring?
Stop trying to take the Warlord away from it's fans out of spite. You hated 4e. You're glad it's dead. Fine. Next is supposed to be for everyone, not a further chance for you take reprisals agsainst those who enjoyed a game you conceived a prejudice against.
No don't take me the wrong way. I don't want to see the warlord dead.
I'm going to reply to your first post, where you try to make the point that the Warlord and Bard should be folded into some other class.
I just have a different idea of what the warlord is. And yes I reject martial healing because it doesn't fit with my playstyle. That statement however, shouldn't make you feel threatened.
Again, what is this "playstyle" beyond hating 4e and hating the Warlord for being in 4e? And, how is it you feel threatened by the prospect of having "playstyles" that do call for martial healing included in the game?
I'm not saying that your playstyle is any less valid than mine.
That's exactly what you're saying. You're saying there shouldn't be a Warlord in the game for me to play. You're saying that I shouldn't be able to play a martial character who heals, or who has daily exploits to manage and use tactically. You're not only saying it's less valid, you're demanding it be banned from D&D Next, the edition that's trying to be for everyone.
I'm starting to get the impression that the warlord is a sacred class that can't be altered and must remain playstyle specific. All I'm saying is that you can't inject the warlord (that fits your playstyle) into the core of the system and expect people to accept it. If you do that then you are forcing your playstyle on everyone else and that just isn't fair at all.
Rejecting the Warlord and removing it from core is forcing your playstyle on everyone else. D&D Next is supposed to be everyone's D&D. That includes people who like the old days, when casters forgot spells when they cast them, so some casters are going to work that way in D&D Next, and those who don't like them simply don't have to use them. That includes people who like the new Warlord, that heals and has interesting powerful abilities that it can only access so often, and those who don't like it simply don't have to use it.
I simply want to be able to play a Warlord, I'm not forcing you to play a Warlord or run a game where Warlords are allowed. There's nothing unfair about what I want. I'm signed on to the D&D Next vision. I want you to be able to play whatever you want. But, I don't know what that is, because all you seem to want to talk about is what you want to take away from others.
If WotC is serious about their vision for D&D Next, they won't listen to you.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 15, 2012 - 10:13AM
#52
|
Date Joined:
Feb 13, 2012
|
As promised. Depending on how you view the concept of the bard and the warlord, is it not possible that they share a common base class/archtype?
Both have been described in D&D as leaders that improve morale and make use of healing.
The Bard has been around since AD&D. Which class do you think would go away if your idea were taken to heart?
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 15, 2012 - 10:30AM
#53
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2012
|
As for the warlord, for my playstyle that class will also need magic to heal. I really only like using the hard core healing rules in 5e and for that reason the warlord class just won't work if it doesn't use magic.
So you want the class gone because it doesn't fit your playstyle? What about those of us for whom martial healing works just fine? What about those who find the Cleric class lacking? It has no genre roots, and the idea of calling upon divine miracles in every fight, then lazing about for 8 hours to get them back can be seen as pretty absurd. A lot more absurd than a strong leader's words inspiring a wounded or discouraged ally to get back up and fighting. The Warlord is a wonderful alternative to the Cleric for many campaigns.
And what is this so-called "playstyle" of yours, beyond anti-4e edition warring?
Stop trying to take the Warlord away from it's fans out of spite. You hated 4e. You're glad it's dead. Fine. Next is supposed to be for everyone, not a further chance for you take reprisals agsainst those who enjoyed a game you conceived a prejudice against.
No don't take me the wrong way. I don't want to see the warlord dead.
I'm going to reply to your first post, where you try to make the point that the Warlord and Bard should be folded into some other class.
I just have a different idea of what the warlord is. And yes I reject martial healing because it doesn't fit with my playstyle. That statement however, shouldn't make you feel threatened.
Again, what is this "playstyle" beyond hating 4e and hating the Warlord for being in 4e? And, how is it you feel threatened by the prospect of having "playstyles" that do call for martial healing included in the game?
I'm not saying that your playstyle is any less valid than mine.
That's exactly what you're saying. You're saying there shouldn't be a Warlord in the game for me to play. You're saying that I shouldn't be able to play a martial character who heals, or who has daily exploits to manage and use tactically. You're not only saying it's less valid, you're demanding it be banned from D&D Next, the edition that's trying to be for everyone.
I'm starting to get the impression that the warlord is a sacred class that can't be altered and must remain playstyle specific. All I'm saying is that you can't inject the warlord (that fits your playstyle) into the core of the system and expect people to accept it. If you do that then you are forcing your playstyle on everyone else and that just isn't fair at all.
Rejecting the Warlord and removing it from core is forcing your playstyle on everyone else. D&D Next is supposed to be everyone's D&D. That includes people who like the old days, when casters forgot spells when they cast them, so some casters are going to work that way in D&D Next, and those who don't like them simply don't have to use them. That includes people who like the new Warlord, that heals and has interesting powerful abilities that it can only access so often, and those who don't like it simply don't have to use it.
I simply want to be able to play a Warlord, I'm not forcing you to play a Warlord or run a game where Warlords are allowed. There's nothing unfair about what I want. I'm signed on to the D&D Next vision. I want you to be able to play whatever you want. But, I don't know what that is, because all you seem to want to talk about is what you want to take away from others.
If WotC is serious about their vision for D&D Next, they won't listen to you.
I can't believe that you think that asking for my playstyle to be supported is akin to edition waring.
You must also think that Mearls and Crawford are edition waring for reconsidering the role of the bard and the warlord.
I'm not threatened by your playstyle I just want the core to be playstyle independent or at the very least provide options. The inclusion of martial healing is a contentious issue, you must accept that truth, and having it as an option does not invalidate your playstyle.
I think you have latched on the warlord (4e style) as a litmus test for the entire 5e system. If the system doesn't include it as a core class you'll most likely just abandon 4e completely.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 15, 2012 - 10:37AM
#54
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2012
|
As promised.
Depending on how you view the concept of the bard and the warlord, is it not possible that they share a common base class/archtype?
Both have been described in D&D as leaders that improve morale and make use of healing.
The Bard has been around since AD&D. Which class do you think would go away if your idea were taken to heart?
None of them. I never suggested that the warlord be removed, that's your assumption.
My suggestion is that they might share a "common base class/archtype". With that in mind there might be a way to clean up the design and make the classes more modular. One suggestion that I made previously was that we could have a wordmaster class from which both classes can be derived from. You might be able to view the bard and the warlord as two sides of the same coin.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 15, 2012 - 10:50AM
#55
|
Date Joined:
Feb 13, 2012
|
I simply want to be able to play a Warlord, I'm not forcing you to play a Warlord or run a game where Warlords are allowed. There's nothing unfair about what I want. I'm signed on to the D&D Next vision. I want you to be able to play whatever you want. But, I don't know what that is, because all you seem to want to talk about is what you want to take away from others.
If WotC is serious about their vision for D&D Next, they won't listen to you.
I can't believe that you think that asking for my playstyle to be supported is akin to edition waring.
For the third time, what is this "playstyle" of yours?
Why is it so intolerant of other people having classes they like available? How does including a Warlord in the Next Player's Handbook hurt it? No one can force you to play a Warlord. No one can force you to include the Warlord when you run a game. You are a DM, right?
"Supporting your playstyle" seems to be nothing more than cutting anything that appeared in 4e. That seems "akin to edtion warring," yes.
If your playstyle really requires that others be unable to play the characters they want, it's not just akin to edition warring, it's worse than edition warring.
The inclusion of martial healing is a contentious issue, you must accept that truth.
I accept that you choose to try to make it a contentious issue. I don't think it's mere inclusion should be contentious in Next, though. D&D Next can't achieve it's goal by listening to the demands of people like you, who want to exclude the things that other people love about D&D from D&D Next out of spite.
D&D Next is supposed to have something for everyone. That will give it lots of great stuff to work with, and those that don't like something (such as martial healing) can simply decline to use it.
It can't be "something excluded for everyone" because that would leave it with nothing.
I think you have latched on the warlord (4e style) as a litmus test for the entire 5e system. If the system doesn't include it as a core class you'll most likely just abandon 4e completely.
The Warlord is my favorite class from the current version of D&D. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect to see it in D&D Next. The D&D for everyone who's ever liked D&D. I'm not sure why you think I'd "abandon 4e," though. I'm planning on playing Next, however it turns out. I assume that the games I play in are going to migrate to it. That'll mean abandoning 4e when the time comes, I suppose. But, I'd hate to have to abandon the Warlord. As it is, I have to get my Warlord characters in under the "DM fun clause" at Encounters.
Everyone has something they liked in a past edition that they want to see in D&D Next. It would be great if everyone got everything they wanted, but obviously, there are space considerations. The plan they have so far, to include every class that appeared in a PH1 sounds like a good one. If your favorite class was in the initial run of your favorite version of the game, it should be in the initial run of Next. If you had to wait for your new class or it was an option in an appendix somewhere, you shouldn't mind waiting a bit or having it labeled 'optional.'
Seems very fair to me.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 15, 2012 - 11:16AM
#56
|
|
|
I think you have latched on the warlord (4e style) as a litmus test for the entire 5e system. If the system doesn't include it as a core class you'll most likely just abandon 4e completely.
I am respond assume you meant abandon 5e, So correct me if I'm wrong.
I can't speak for Ed, but I would say this statement is somewhat accurate for me. The language is stronger then I would use, because I would not abandon 5e because warlord isn't exactly as it was in 4e. If changes happen because the game is simplified and streamlined I'm all for keeping those elements. Removal of interesting elements of the class to placate people who will not make use of it no matter what form it takes just won't sit well with me. A class that is a shell of what I come to expect would be worse than not having it at all. Additionally, if the developers make that kind of decision at the end of the playtest process it would be a strong indicator for me making my decision.
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 - 11:24AM
#57
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2012
|
I think you have latched on the warlord (4e style) as a litmus test for the entire 5e system. If the system doesn't include it as a core class you'll most likely just abandon 4e completely.
I am respond assume you meant abandon 5e, So correct me if I'm wrong.
I can't speak for Ed, but I would say this statement is somewhat accurate for me. The language is stronger then I would use, because I would not abandon 5e because warlord isn't exactly as it was in 4e. If changes happen because the game is simplified and streamlined I'm all for keeping those elements. Removal of interesting elements of the class to placate people who will not make use of it no matter what form it takes just won't sit well with me. A class that is a shell of what I come to expect would be worse than not having it at all. Additionally, if the developers make that kind of decision at the end of the playtest process it would be a strong indicator for me making my decision.
yes I did mean 5e.
My only suggestion is that the warlord class has options to play it differently. Some might want martial healing to be magical and others won't. Of course, my idea of magical healing doesn't require the warlord to cast spells either. I'm also not suggesting that the warlord be limited to one playstyle or the other. I can't see how that wouldn't make everyone happy. The designers had no choice to fix the resting rules for that very reason and include options. I therefore see no reason why the same wouldn't be true for the warlord class either.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 15, 2012 - 11:36AM
#58
|
|
|
I think you have latched on the warlord (4e style) as a litmus test for the entire 5e system. If the system doesn't include it as a core class you'll most likely just abandon 4e completely.
I am respond assume you meant abandon 5e, So correct me if I'm wrong.
I can't speak for Ed, but I would say this statement is somewhat accurate for me. The language is stronger then I would use, because I would not abandon 5e because warlord isn't exactly as it was in 4e. If changes happen because the game is simplified and streamlined I'm all for keeping those elements. Removal of interesting elements of the class to placate people who will not make use of it no matter what form it takes just won't sit well with me. A class that is a shell of what I come to expect would be worse than not having it at all. Additionally, if the developers make that kind of decision at the end of the playtest process it would be a strong indicator for me making my decision.
yes I did mean 5e.
My only suggestion is that the warlord class has options to play it differently. Some might want martial healing to be magical and others won't. Of course, my idea of magical healing doesn't require the warlord to cast spells either. I'm also not suggesting that the warlord be limited to one playstyle or the other. I can't see how that wouldn't make everyone happy. The designers had no choice to fix the resting rules for that very reason and include options. I therefore see no reason why the same wouldn't be true for the warlord class either.
I'm all for having more options.
An additional concern with this line of thinking is that we would effectively be deciding that bards and warlords are the same and that a individual character can not be both since they are archtypes under the same umbrella. I much prefer the warlord sit under the martial umbrella, because to this point I have seen nothing to suggest that martial classes can't multi-class with each other. However, I can't see how a illusionist tradition could multi-class with a battle mage tradition.
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 - 11:53AM
#59
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2012
|
Whenever I see people on here arguing about what a Class IS, I always end up with a headache from my eyes rolling so much...
People are fighting about the D&DN bard and warlord before we've even seen them. To me, the conversation is confusing. I don't personally see how they are similar at all. Maybe that's because I had a Bard in 2e who was so irreconcilable with a warlord that my brain can't compute it? I mean, what are we even talking about? That they are the same on some reductive level decided by a rando on the internet? Sure? Next problem...
A few guidelines for using the internet:
1. Mentally add "In my opinion" to the end of basically anything someone else says. Of course it's their opinion, they don't need to let you know. You're pretty smart.
2. Assume everyone means everything in the best manner they could mean it. Save yourself some stress and give people the benefit of the doubt. We'll all be happier if we type less emoticons.
3. Don't try to read people's minds. Sometimes people mean exactly what they say. You probably don't know them any better than they know themselves.
4. Let grammar slide. If you understood what they meant, you're good. It's better for your health.
5. Breath. It's just a dumb game.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 15, 2012 - 12:07PM
#60
|
Date Joined:
Apr 17, 2008
|
If you can't tell the difference between Elan from Order of the Stick and Sgt. Fury, well, I don't know what to say.
This may be my favorite post I've ever read on these forums.
|
|
|
