|
3 months ago ::
Mar 01, 2013 - 6:12PM
#201
|
|
|
I've always said that there are minor injuries happening before 0.
So the cure spells make perfect sense.
After all, they AREN'T restricted in any way.
You can use "cure light" repeatedly to heal you all the way from negative back to full, that's more of an inherent internal issue than anything to do with non-magical Hit Point restoration.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 01, 2013 - 11:18PM
#202
|
Date Joined:
Aug 11, 2006
|
The Warlord is one of the reasons the Fighter can't get nice things. It's the 'smart' half of the Fighter class, it's got all the appropriate skills and leadership ability (if you played 1 or 2e, you might remember seeing that followers chart after level 10?), meaning the Fighter is relegated to stupid meat stick.
By allowing the 'Warlord' to exist, you relegate the Fighter into a single 'pillar'.
That is the second reason I cannot stand the Warlord.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 01, 2013 - 11:23PM
#203
|
Date Joined:
Feb 25, 2013
|
Plus the Warlord is going to be a large factor in making or breakign this game for a number of people in the 4e fanbase.
If an entire edition of D&D hinges on a Johnny-Come-Lately for a "number of people", that's their problem.
But I would totally dig a Marshall/Captain what-not class (detest the name "Warlord", not a very positive word in Africa).
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 01, 2013 - 11:25PM
#204
|
Date Joined:
Feb 25, 2013
|
The Warlord is one of the reasons the Fighter can't get nice things. It's the 'smart' half of the Fighter class, it's got all the appropriate skills and leadership ability (if you played 1 or 2e, you might remember seeing that followers chart after level 10?), meaning the Fighter is relegated to stupid meat stick.
By allowing the 'Warlord' to exist, you relegate the Fighter into a single 'pillar'.
That is the second reason I cannot stand the Warlord.
I can dig it, but I do think you can have room for both.
Tanis = Warord (agh, can't stand that name for a class!); Caramon = Fighter.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 01, 2013 - 11:44PM
#205
|
Date Joined:
Oct 26, 2004
|
Minions does not a warlord make.
Frankly the lackey acquisition always struck me as the most lame brained upper tier ability ever. You have to feed the stupid slobs, you have to hold their hands and deck them out in the best gear you can afford or they'll get chewed up like balsa wood at a termite fair if you want them to go up against anything even remotely challenging to you and your party, and they're all basically weak xerox copies of you so you're just spamming more basic attacks, most of which probably can't hit/hurt anything nastier than an ogre.
Frankly if the fighter wants to sell me on being a leader of men he's gonna have to do a lot better than that.
Upper tier fighters should be combat threats on the order of Kenshin Himoura, Samurai Jack, Hawkeye, The Musketeers, or any of Errol Flynne's swashbucklers.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 02, 2013 - 12:02AM
#206
|
|
|
The Warlord is one of the reasons the Fighter can't get nice things. It's the 'smart' half of the Fighter class, it's got all the appropriate skills and leadership ability (if you played 1 or 2e, you might remember seeing that followers chart after level 10?), meaning the Fighter is relegated to stupid meat stick.
By allowing the 'Warlord' to exist, you relegate the Fighter into a single 'pillar'.
That is the second reason I cannot stand the Warlord.
Bollox.
For a startoff leading groups of minor followers hasn't ever been part of the Warlord class, not in 3.X nor in 4th, and it's not an effective andventuring tool.
And we've been told that similar opportunities will be available to everyone after 10th level via the Legacy system.
Fighters can't have nice things because the Design team are stuck in a grognard mindset, it has nothing to do with the Warlord.
...
I've been running the numbers on some Warlord concepts and I think that something similar to "Lead The Attack" could easily be viable in Next.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 02, 2013 - 2:34PM
#207
|
|
|
The Warlord is one of the reasons the Fighter can't get nice things. It's the 'smart' half of the Fighter class, it's got all the appropriate skills and leadership ability (if you played 1 or 2e, you might remember seeing that followers chart after level 10?), meaning the Fighter is relegated to stupid meat stick.
By allowing the 'Warlord' to exist, you relegate the Fighter into a single 'pillar'.
That is the second reason I cannot stand the Warlord.
As someone who likes the "smart" Fighter, I think there are ways to carefully delineate.
The Fighter's tactical intelligence is about their own actions, about fighting in such a way that the enemy is pushed in the right spot, denied actions and movement, and the fighter is fighting at maximum efficiency.
The Warlord's tactical intelligence is about the actions of the rest of the group and very little about themselves.
To use an analogy:
A smart Fighter is Inigo Montoya using Agrippa to overcome the Dread Pirate Roberts' Thibaut, so that his Capa Ferro gives him the advantage on rocky terrain.
A Smart Warlord is Hannibal using the refused center and flank envelopment to beat a numerically superior Roman force at Cannae.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 02, 2013 - 2:37PM
#208
|
Date Joined:
Jan 29, 2005
|
The Warlord is one of the reasons the Fighter can't get nice things. It's the 'smart' half of the Fighter class, it's got all the appropriate skills and leadership ability (if you played 1 or 2e, you might remember seeing that followers chart after level 10?), meaning the Fighter is relegated to stupid meat stick.
By allowing the 'Warlord' to exist, you relegate the Fighter into a single 'pillar'.
That is the second reason I cannot stand the Warlord.
As someone who likes the "smart" Fighter, I think there are ways to carefully delineate.
The Fighter's tactical intelligence is about their own actions, about fighting in such a way that the enemy is pushed in the right spot, denied actions and movement, and the fighter is fighting at maximum efficiency.
The Warlord's tactical intelligence is about the actions of the rest of the group and very little about themselves.
To use an analogy:
A smart Fighter is Inigo Montoya using Agrippa to overcome the Dread Pirate Roberts' Thibaut, so that his Capa Ferro gives him the advantage on rocky terrain.
A Smart Warlord is Hannibal using the refused center and flank envelopment to beat a numerically superior Roman force at Cannae.
Basically this. The Fighter wields a weapon. The Warlord wields the Fighter.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 02, 2013 - 2:45PM
#209
|
Date Joined:
Jan 29, 2005
|
I think the advanced rules need to contain a lot of class synergy. It is one thing that this game is severely lacking right now. I don't think I've ever had more fun playing 4e than having a well played fighter/warlord combination in the group.
In a game about 2 years ago, I played a Warforged Fighter and my friend Dave was playing a Tactical Warlord. He constantly used his high initiative to allow me to charge in at the start of combat, which let me start locking down enemies early. It always set the pace of the combat if we were able to do it before the enemies got a chance to go. His exact words in this situation were always "I throw my Fighter at them".
This is a small example of the Warlord wielding the Fighter. It is something that I enjoy thoroughly, and not something I'm readily willing to give up.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 02, 2013 - 2:47PM
#210
|
|
|
Basically this. The Fighter wields a weapon. The Warlord wields the Fighter.
And the Fighter/Warlord wields EVERYTHING...
|
|
|
