|
7 months ago ::
Nov 14, 2012 - 9:18AM
#41
|
Date Joined:
Oct 27, 2012
|
The bard makes sense as a "Jack-of-All-Trades" archetype, equally emphasizing combat, skills, RP, and world-changing magics.
Of course, post 4E, the BALANCE UBER ALLES crew have, sadly, made such an archetype unnecessary, since they think that thieves, fighters, mages, etc. should *ALL* be equally proficient at everything, all the time. Under the circumstances, everyone's a bard now.
If the game should (merciful Buddha, hear my plea) return to a condition in which there's actually some differentiation between the classes, and we dump this "BALANCE!" nonsense, then the Bard may actually become useful and interesting again.
For the Warlord, of course, there is no excuse outside of a post 10th-level prestige class.
The nightmare balance design constraint is one of the primary reasons I do not want 4e and 5e
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 14, 2012 - 9:42AM
#42
|
Date Joined:
May 22, 2003
|
The bard makes sense as a "Jack-of-All-Trades" archetype, equally emphasizing combat, skills, RP, and world-changing magics.
*deleted*
If the game should (merciful Buddha, hear my plea) return to a condition in which there's actually some differentiation between the classes, and we dump this "BALANCE!" nonsense, then the Bard may actually become useful and interesting again.
For the Warlord, of course, there is no excuse outside of a post 10th-level prestige class.
The nightmare balance design constraint is one of the primary reasons I do not want 4e and 5e
...still don't understand why you insist on contributing here and shaping the outcome of a game you have no intention of playing. 
Moderated by
Orc_Welfin
on Nov 14, 2012 - 09:45AM
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 14, 2012 - 9:44AM
#43
|
Date Joined:
Sep 20, 2012
|
I've removed content from this thread. Trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct You can review the Code of Conduct here: company.wizards.com/conductPlease remember to keep your posts polite, on topic and refrain from personal attacks. You are free to disagree with one another as long as it is done in a respectful manner.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 14, 2012 - 9:54AM
#44
|
Date Joined:
Oct 27, 2012
|
...still don't understand why you insist on contributing here and shaping the outcome of a game you have no intention of playing.
Analysing and discussing the future of tabletop roleplaying games are an enjoyable relaxation activity
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 14, 2012 - 9:55AM
#45
|
|
|
To answer the OP's question: No. Not at all.
With the exception of 4e, the bard has primarily been a rogue-type character, with "leader" as a minor secondary trait or constrained to specific sub-builds.
The Warlord is leader primary, leader secondary, leader all the way down.
They are highly distinct both as archetypes and as mechnical constructs, with their only overlap being the Skald, which should probably be folded into the warlord.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 14, 2012 - 10:50AM
#46
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2012
|
A common framework would only contribute to more sameness.
That's true, but sometimes it is acceptable. Specialist wizards and specialty priests are great examples. They are not different enough to warrant a class, but they do make great specialists.
Is the bard a specialist warlord or vice versa? Is he a specialist wizard/rogue?
Even Mearls and Crawford were arguing about the bard and the warlord in their last interview. They are trying to rationalize the role of both classes in the game. I just don't want to see the game suffer from needless class bloat and for that reason I encourage their efforts. I'm glad they are thinking about these things.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 14, 2012 - 11:07AM
#47
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
Even Mearls and Crawford were arguing about the bard and the warlord in their last interview. They are trying to rationalize the role of both classes in the game. I just don't want to see the game suffer from needless class bloat and for that reason I encourage their efforts. I'm glad they are thinking about these things.
Me too! The fact they ARE wrestling with these concepts is a good thing, it means they arent taking it lightly and that they may be just as torn over how to work this out as the fanbase is. The result - we may just get something really cool out of it
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 14, 2012 - 11:22AM
#48
|
Date Joined:
Apr 16, 2009
|
But once you want ... the warlord that heals wounds, magic must enter the picture for some playstyles.
I don't get it. Non-magical healing with a word or two is observed fact in the real world. So why does it have to be magical in fantasy?
(Granted, it doesn't actually heal wounds in the real world. But it does raise people from unconsciousness, and give people the strength and will to continue on in spite of wounds. And in D&D there is no point where the loss of HP absolutely unconditionally means wounds and cannot be refluffed. A bard who reduces a guard to negative HP via Vicious Mockery possibly persuaded him to abandon his post and run off.)
"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 14, 2012 - 11:37AM
#49
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2012
|
A bard who reduces a guard to negative HP via Vicious Mockery possibly persuaded him to abandon his post and run off.)
Wow, that would be such a huge disconnect for my group.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 14, 2012 - 12:05PM
#50
|
Date Joined:
May 22, 2003
|
That's true, but sometimes it is acceptable. Specialist wizards and specialty priests are great examples. They are not different enough to warrant a class, but they do make great specialists.
Is the bard a specialist warlord or vice versa? Is he a specialist wizard/rogue?
The bard is neither, has never been either, and the very recent addition of the warlord does not promote the bard being either.
Even Mearls and Crawford were arguing about the bard and the warlord in their last interview. They are trying to rationalize the role of both classes in the game. I just don't want to see the game suffer from needless class bloat and for that reason I encourage their efforts. I'm glad they are thinking about these things.
It occured to me that they were trying to rationalize the role of the warlord given the existence of the bard (meaning, the addition of the warlord creates an interesting conversation about the bard's assumed purview), but I agree that their critical thinking is a boon to the game. 
|
|
|
