Please, guys, let's not overanalyze the lost hand remark. Both Mearls and Thompson were laughing at the time and not taking their comments seriously. Neither of them think that there's broken bones or severed limbs int he game.
It's an easy target but a false one.
The issue is whether D&D-style healing is really a necessary component of being a tactical strategist. on that point I happend ot agree with Mearls. The martial healing -- a trope I fully supoprt -- is tacked onto the strategist. I like the idea that inspirational healign is something that amnybody sould specialize in. That could be a Specialty, which is what Thompson indicated would happen with a Healer Specialty.
The whole diversion about lost limbs and broken bones is a red herring.
How exactly do I take the Healer Specialty and the Leader Specialty? Because that is the only way I could achieve a Warlord that is remotely on par with the 4E Warlord.
First of all, I am not defending the choice to carve up the warlord this way. I want a warlord class.
That said, presumably, you'd take some feats from Leader and some from Healer, and combine that with the tactical strategist meneuvers in the fighter. Then you'd have a warlord with tactical maneuvers, some martial healign, and some action-granting from the leader specialty.
Sorry, I wasn't implying you don't want the Warlord as a class. I think if they are going to do this with the Warlord, they could easily carve up the Ranger and Paladin in a similar fashion. For the Ranger, just take the Scout Background and the Two-Weapon or Bow Specialties. But they won't do that, because that would interfere with the Appeal to Old Editions Above All Else Circle Jerk.
I too would like to see the warlord class. Absorbing the ranger and paladin can be done just as easy. But some of the undertone for absorbing the warlord is that there is a definate core shift from the ruleset that made the warlord shine. If those core rules are gone, then the warlord can be assimulated into concepts that fit better within the proposed rules set. That really has nothing to do with throwing bones to older players.
I would prefer not to see a warlord that is a charity addition just to make people happy that their favorite class was added or to maximize profit, all the while other concept/combos are working within the rules set, maybe even better than the warlord class itself. But if they do that to increase sales or whatever, than something like adding a class won't really chaff my hide.
So, apparently Wallace can't 'grow his hand back', but 8h of sleep can. Interesting.
LOL
I think it is actually worse reading the transcript. The problem with moving so many historical "classes" into "specialties", is not just that you lose your choices just to approximate an old class, its that the whole feat and specialty system basically sucks right now. Feats are way too spread out. The choices that are there are not really iconic feeling to begin with, and don't mesh well with established class concepts except on the shallowest of levels ("I am an AMBUSHER! DURRRRR!" "Me, I am a SKULKER!"). I think most players will just pick what feats they want rather than stick with the suggested ones anyway; the feat system lacks the cohesion of a class, it is more awkward. Finally, it will take you multiple levels, perhaps months or even years of play, to even get the PC to what should be the starting point of a class.
I would prefer lots of classes with lots of varied core mechanics. THEN I can add on specialties, etc. I don't want to be stuck with a Fighter chassis just to play anything with armor.
With the way they're developing each of the non-core classes, I'm somewhat doubtful on how exactly they define classes outside of the context of the Core Four. Thus, it's fairly likely that every class that hasn't appeared in 0E would end up as a build or a specialty (see: Archivist, Warden, Invoker, Bladesinger, Warlord/Marshal).
In the section where they discuss how the Fighter should be the "lord of battle" and how the Warlord is basically a different style of being a "lord of battle" (as the Fighter is thought of as the guy who rips the enemy a new airhole, while the Warlord is the more inspirational warrior), I sincerely have to ask: why should the Warlord be merged with the Fighter, yet at the same time the Barbarian is a completely separate class in spite of the fact that both the Fighter and Barbarian occupy the exact same design space?
Or should we assume that Barbarians are by default inferior to fighters in the battlefield?
Because they're tackling the class conceptualization in a manner that focuses far less on possible player participation and far more into the "how the class fits into the world", I fear that this is going to end up with trap options, compensated (barely) only by Specialties if the DM allows them.
I'd like to point out how they talk about the Warlord having mostly a Fighter thing with some leader-y Bard thing going on, and how the supposedly-unrealistic healing doesn't work in spite of the abstract nature of hit points and damage. I do wonder: how do you make PCs press on without having to add new rules or resort to healing? Is it by allowing PCs to fight with negative HP, causing them to create a hilarious, yet likely disturbing image of PCs getting up, attacking, then collapsing at the end of their attack from lack of hit points?
Come to think of it, how often do they talk about group empowerment (not just the DM, but the player as well)
I don't mind the Fighter merging with the Warlord provided that the Fighter-as-Warlord is allowed to contribute outside of combat at the same level as that of other classes.
- - - - - The Fighter-as-Warlord concept isn't really new; Tome of Battle gave us the White Raven powers (which used to be one of the schools the Warblade and Crusader could access I think [too sleepy to check right now], and some of which were absorbed by the 4E Warlord), and high CHA Fighters (that didn't become Paladins) from any edition of D&D would basically be charismatic leaders.
What really causes me concern about this involves overall system design:
lack of flexibility in class features
non-magic user class powers restricted in use
optional nature of specialization
specialization and class occupying the same design space (archetypes)
It's already been pointed out that Parry is a useless class feature for an archer-style Fighter, but why aren't there alternatives to Parry? Magic-users get to swap powers on a daily basis while non-magic users are stuck with whatever they chose unless the DM invokes Rule 0. Specialization is so cramped for space, also represents archetypes (like classes) and at the same time unecessary for the game to function.
You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery.
(1) The only way to make the Warlord work as a fighter variant is to do a whole lot more to flesh out the fighter as a base class. This is true for pretty much all of the classes at the moment. There aren't enough options and those options are not impactful enough to be changed out for class-defining abilities. If you give a variant class-defining abilities that are powerful enough to characterize the variant, then the variant will end up being better than the base class. I could see a fighter-variant taking the place of the warlord, but not with the current iteration of the fighter class.
(2) Healing by inspiration works. Hitpoints are an abstraction, not a true-to-form measure of how much blood a character can lose before passing out. However, if that part really bothers someone, then the Warlord could give out temporary hitpoints rather than true healing. He rallies his allies, they gain temporary hit points with a duration attached... this has the effect of emboldening his allies and avoids the healing argument. He never improves anyone's injuries, but gives them a buffer so they can fight on.
(3) The sorcerer was a mechanical wizard variant. Over time, however, the sorcerer has become its own class. That is the cool thing about classes, you can build on them. The pathfinder sorcerer is different enough to justify its existence. If the concern about the warlord is that it is too similar to the fighter, then maybe the warlord needs to be fleshed out more as a class. The current thought-process of the Devs is to minimize. Take only what is fundamentally necessary and put that in. From that perspective, a lot of classes will die before DDN is released. Once upon a time the barbarian was just a fighter variant, should that have stayed true? Or was the concept good enough to build into a unique class? I lean toward the latter conclusion. Sometimes, if something doesn't seem unique enough, the onus is on thhe developers to make it so. The question is not "does this need a home" the question is "Can we represent this concept better as its own class?". If you said swordsman, duelist, halberdier, hoplite, gladiator.... I would say go ahead and make a variant. But you have to draw the line somewhere. Warlord is a good place to start.
A question for all of you, considering some of the comments in this thread:
If Specialties were to be separated from feats and made into two distinct things, how would you feel about that, and how would you like to see it done?
Mearls: I guess my big thing is, would you, in the world of Dungeons and Dragons, if you pictured a guy who is a cunning tactial leader, would you expect that guy to heal you?
Thompson: I wouldn't expect him to automatically be able to know how to heal somebody. But, I could see that character who is more of a field medic.
Mearls: He could be a healer.
Thompson: He could be. I'm not saying he was.
Mearls: And that's throughout the system. We have a Specialty that lets you pick up some healign abilities.
Thompson: Yeah. We're going to want to continue to expand that.
Mearls: We don't expect teh sargeant of the guard or captain of the guard to heal downed warriors. That's not the default. That's kind of the thing. And then if you say, "Well, he can heal, because he's really this inspiring presence, well then you've just kind of described a bard. Because bards -- the entire schtick of bards -- is that they are really inspiring and they are charismatic. The bard is the guy with panache who -- "Onwward!" That's the bard's deal, isn't it?
Thompson: That's a big part of the bard, I would say. I think there's some desire for a, when you're playing that leader character, to be able to say, "Alright, men! Fight on!" and be the guy leading the charge. To be William Wallace from Braveheart. You want to be that guy. I would not describe a William Wallace-type character as a bard.
Mearls: But you also wouldn't say he's a healer. I wouldn't. I wouldn't think, if there's a guy whose been gutted, William Wallace gets the guys to freak out and charge and moon the BRitish--
Thompson: Well...
Mearls: Healing? If the guy has a broken arm, does William Wallace--
Thompson: William Wallace clearly went and inspired the guy who got his hand cut off to keep fighting. There's that--
Mearls: But his hand didn't grow back. (laughter) Now I'm being a little ridiculous.
Thompson: That's literally a cut scene. Anyway, to bring it back to the warlord, there is a focus that we're tryign to take about the warlord being in the fighter, being the tactical leader, and then I think that if you want to play very much the Fourth Edition warlord, we should have a way for you to build that character. Take the fighter. Take the tactical leader-y fighter and apply a specialty or--
Mearls: A Healer Specialty. Just like the one piece that's just not there.
I don't think this is a red herring. Of course Mearls knows that HP damage doesn't mean broken bones and severed hands. But the very fact that, the minute Thompson mentioned healing, Mearls went to physical wounds suggests that he thinks that's the only kind of healing. It's hard to read this without getting the sense that Mearls is adamantly against the very concept of martial healing and doesn't want it anywhere near his game. He's recognized that "martial healing" isn't "healing" in the traditional english language sense of the word, but he doesn't seem to have recognized that HP healing doesn't have anything to do with the traditional english language sense of the word either. I don't really get the impression from this that he's fine with martial characters restoring HP so long as it's clear that it won't regrow your severed hands; rather, I get the the impression that he thinks only magic can let you regain HP and inspiration should have some other mechanic like acting below 0 HP or something. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand as totally meaningless either.
they could easily carve up the Ranger and Paladin in a similar fashion. For the Ranger, just take the Scout Background and the Two-Weapon or Bow Specialties. But they won't do that, because that would interfere with the Appeal to Old Editions Above All Else Circle Jerk.
I just don't understand the Two-weapon Fighting and Bow Specialty association with the Ranger class. These have nothing to do with the traditional Ranger, only the later implementations of it. The Ranger's individuality comes from its connection to nature (either a wilderness or an urban focus); through its implementation of animal companions, favored enemies, favored terrain, & tracking (in alphabetical order, not order of relevance or importance; since those could vary from person to person).
I didn't forget anything. As it stands, characters get four feats. It is unlikely I could achieve a functional Warlord that heals, grants actions, and directs allies in just four feats. Especially if I want that Warlord to do things like effectively wield two weapons, or cast a few minor spells. The opportunity cost to achieve the Warlord as they are describing is not in place for any other PHB1 class. They need to either increase the number of feats, or move the Warlord into a full class. But, since they won't increase the number of feats (because they need to bend over all the fans of newer editions), they need to move the Warlord into a full class.
Why don't you play a Cleric with the two-weapon specialty? Rename the spells so that Bless and Aid are Inspiration and Spiritual Hammer is Tactical Command. Done, you have your Warlord.
Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand as totally meaningless either.
I think you're reading too much,
Mearls is making a completely valid point that -- even though hit points is abstract -- until 4e, healing has never represented inspiration and has never been described as abstract. It's always been described as physical. Even bardic inspirational healign was magical and physical. Now, people can reflavor it as abstract, and frankly, I don't think it makes sense otherwise. But until 4e, that's not how it was described.
And this also gets into his initial point about warlords. Are be describing an archetype we are trying to represent with mechanics, or are we describing a pool of mechanics we are trying to shovel into the warlord basket?
Is martial healing a necessary component of the warlord archetype? If the warlord is supposed to be a master of strategy and leader of men, then no.
If we are describing a walord, however, as a class that allows a party not to have a cleric, then the warlord's not an archetype -- it's an excuse.
I think the walord is an archetype and while I'm not averse to martial healing being one of the tools in his arsenal, it's certainly not a major or necesary tool given his archetype.
they could easily carve up the Ranger and Paladin in a similar fashion. For the Ranger, just take the Scout Background and the Two-Weapon or Bow Specialties. But they won't do that, because that would interfere with the Appeal to Old Editions Above All Else Circle Jerk.
I just don't understand the Two-weapon Fighting and Bow Specialty association with the Ranger class. These have nothing to do with the traditional Ranger, only the later implementations of it. The Ranger's individuality comes from its connection to nature (either a wilderness or an urban focus); through its implementation of animal companions, favored enemies, favored terrain, & tracking (in alphabetical order, not order of relevance or importance; since those could vary from person to person).
And why can't these things be absorbed into Specialties?
