|
4 months ago ::
Mar 07, 2013 - 12:26PM
#401
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2012
|
Someone would have to first define the warlord in non-mechanical terms. Then they can try to find ways to express that concept without resorting to 4e 'Narrative Last" mechanics.
... But people have already done that for you in this thread (and one of them was dismissed as "boardgamey"). I'm confused.
I never said they didn't . At this point, based on those descriptions I don't see any reason to make the warlord its own class. I also don't see why that concept must use 4e like mechanics either.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Mar 07, 2013 - 12:39PM
#402
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
THe irony to me is that the lazylord is closer to justifying its own class than the classic 'lead from the front' warlord.
But the lazylord also isn't the actual warlord image they thought of (or are likely thinking of) when they design(ed) the class.
It sounds more like the bard (stand in the back and inspire the party to greatness) than it does a warlord. But without the musical flavorings. So until we see the bard (and especially until we find out if they must use music or can instead use rhetoric as a performance device) we can't really judge the lazylord's place in the game.
If the bard is tied to closely to music and magic, then there is an argument for a leader who can tell others what to do without getting their own hands dirty. I'm still not convinced it needs a class - but it at least needs specialty/ feat support including the ability to grant others actions (such as through a maneuver or other means which lets it trigger attacks and moves in others and some non-magical healing feats).
Aside: Another Lazylord I built (for an encounters season) was a pixie warlord fey beast tamer who rode into battle on the back of his owlbear. If I needed to fight, I used the owlbear (enhanced by my powers) and otherwise I used my warlord abilities to give party members attacks, etc. .....
Carl
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Mar 07, 2013 - 1:49PM
#403
|
|
|
Someone would have to first define the warlord in non-mechanical terms. Then they can try to find ways to express that concept without resorting to 4e 'Narrative Last" mechanics.
.. But people have already done that for you in this thread (and one of them was dismissed as "boardgamey"). I'm confused.
I never said they didn't . At this point, based on those descriptions I don't see any reason to make the warlord its own class. I also don't see why that concept must use 4e like mechanics either.
It's got just as good of a reason to exsist as pretty much any other class does.
IMO, if anything, we should drop the fighter. It really doesn't have a "thing". Anyone should be able to hit with weapons.
guides
Show
my builds
Show
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.
Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.
Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.
King Fisher Does an excellent job at keeping an enemy disabled in a few ways. Strong.
Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.
Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.
Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.
Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.
Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.
Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.
Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.
Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.
Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.
Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.
Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.
Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.
Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.
Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.
The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.
Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power
Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken
Unnamed Avenger|Runepriest/Hammer of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.
Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.
Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.
Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight, only far more broken.
Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.
Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Mar 07, 2013 - 1:52PM
#404
|
Date Joined:
Jun 24, 2005
|
Why can't a PC create tactics?
I mean, we don't have a player swing a sword, or cast spells. We imagine the PC's doing that. What's wrong with imagining a PC laying out a plan?
Its personal preference and style. I prefer precombat tactics, and unified tactics where parties form phalanxes and formations. Individual team tactics translate better when they are not on the fly. There are too many degrees of separation from the original intent.
Yes, and it would be hard to play chess in your head. I do feel that some of the 4e combat rules (many of which would need to be in place for the warlord) are "board gamey".
Someone would have to first define the warlord in non-mechanical terms. Then they can try to find ways to express that concept without resorting to 4e 'Narrative Last" mechanics.
That is key right there. Something like Tactical Shift is more magical than martial healing. I would rather the Warlord use training rituals where they can give a permanent speed increase equal to their int mod.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Mar 07, 2013 - 2:22PM
#405
|
Date Joined:
May 19, 2011
|
D&D Next does not need to create the warlord as a top level class simply because it was designed that way in 4e.
Maybe not in the design sense, but in the sense of Next having even plausible denyability when it pretends to be inclusive. Yes, the warlord needs to be it's own class, if only so they can point to one, solitary example of something great from 4e making it into Next.
Doubtless, like the fighter, it would end up an enferior class, existing only for casters to have something to be superior too, but it's mere existance, no matter how bowdlerized, would give them a fig leaf.
Why does it need to be its own class?
Why does the Bard need to be it's own class?
Why does the Paladin need to be it's own class?
Why does the Barbarian have to be it's own class?
Those 3 would be way easier to fold into it's "parent" class than a Warlord into a Fighter. What makes them different enough to be worth having their own class?
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Mar 07, 2013 - 2:23PM
#406
|
Date Joined:
May 19, 2011
|
Something like Tactical Shift is more magical than martial healing.
Telling someone to move over a few feet is magical now? :|
I weep for this generation.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Mar 07, 2013 - 3:17PM
#407
|
Date Joined:
Nov 21, 2009
|
Something like Tactical Shift is more magical than martial healing.
Telling someone to move over a few feet is magical now? :|
I weep for this generation.
 It's just a step to left!
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Mar 07, 2013 - 3:40PM
#408
|
Date Joined:
Aug 25, 2007
|
also that whe worlord can't heal dosen't mean he can't reduce damage
shout warning
you spot a treat to a ally and shout out a warning to him.
Effect : You can use your reaction to warn an ally.
When a target within 60 feet of you is hit by a attack and is able to hear you,
you can use a reaction to spend martial damage dice to reduce the attack’s damage against the target.
Roll all the martial damage dice you spend, add up their results subtracting 1 for every 10 feet the target is away from you, and reduce the damage by that total.
If the damage drops to 0, the hit becomes a miss.
or somthing like healing half the amount rolled at range to balance it out with protect that is close range.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Mar 11, 2013 - 3:38PM
#409
|
Date Joined:
Mar 21, 2010
|
ok so we don't liek the warlord going away fine
On the bright side, the said they had a Druid ready and it sounded like they actually got all the things Druid would need into it
well see
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Mar 11, 2013 - 4:01PM
#410
|
Date Joined:
Mar 28, 2008
|
D&D Next does not need to create the warlord as a top level class simply because it was designed that way in 4e.
Maybe not in the design sense, but in the sense of Next having even plausible denyability when it pretends to be inclusive. Yes, the warlord needs to be it's own class, if only so they can point to one, solitary example of something great from 4e making it into Next.
Doubtless, like the fighter, it would end up an enferior class, existing only for casters to have something to be superior too, but it's mere existance, no matter how bowdlerized, would give them a fig leaf.
Why does it need to be its own class?
Why does the Bard need to be it's own class?
Why does the Paladin need to be it's own class?
Why does the Barbarian have to be it's own class?
Those 3 would be way easier to fold into it's "parent" class than a Warlord into a Fighter. What makes them different enough to be worth having their own class?
Those 3 are not badwrong4efun
|
|
|
