|
3 months ago ::
Mar 07, 2013 - 8:04AM
#21
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
I would disagree, wrecan; I think there are essentially two Warlord/Marshal builds, as it were, and both could be fit into the Fighter, if enough maneuver choices are allowed.
There's the Master Strategist, and there's the Warrior Therapist who shouts at you until you get up, like Micky Goldmill, Rocky's Coach.
I disagree. i think there are four warlord archetypes, and I don't even consider the Warrior Therapist to be an archetype.
I think there's:
Vanguard: The instructive warrior who uses his attacks to show allies how better to take down the foe.
Grandmaster: The tactician who sees the battlefield as a whole and uses a variety of gambits and strategies to manipulate positioning and movement to turn the tide of battle.
Captain: The leader of men who shores up his allies' weaknesses and enhances their strengths.
Hector: The fearsome warrior who uses his brutality to manipulate the enemy into making mistakes and breaking ranks.
And you can have your Warrior Therapist as well, if you like. 
Now, I could see each of these as a set of fighter maneuvers. But that would mean four (or five) separate warlord maneuver chains. Now, as CartT and others point out, the game could begin with only one or two chains and add more in magazine articles or supplements. I'd be fine with that. But the podcast, as quoted above, doesn't indicate that sort of mentality. The curent attitude (and one that could and hopefully will change) is that one would need only one warlord chain.
They seem to think only the Grandmaster is a bona fide archetype. The Captain is going to be a Leader Specialty that anybody can take. There is no Vanguard and there is no Hector. And the Warrior Therapist is going to be the Healer Specialty.
Well, I guess I know what my first article pitch will be after 5e releases.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 07, 2013 - 8:04AM
#22
|
Date Joined:
Aug 12, 2006
|
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.
You forget that Specialties are simply a feat delivery system. How do you take both Specialties? You pick the feats that match the character you have in mind from the two Specialties, which this method of character creation could become more fleshed out as the playtest progresses. Hopefully.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 07, 2013 - 8:09AM
#23
|
Date Joined:
Oct 17, 2007
|
4E had combat roles. Specifically the Leader role, geared towards support (in combat).
Now, as things went all Leaders happened to do healing as well, but things could have been designed differently and the sytem would have been able to support that, I believe, like having a non-healing Leader.
5E has just two combat roles: damage or heal. If you fall into 'heal', with this kind of design that's pretty much what you'll be doing full time in combat (let's not kid ourselves thinking otherwise), which is a no go for a Warlord concept.
That leaves damage, hence the fighter sub-class approach. But that doesn't give us a warlord either; it may be called like that but it will have little in common with the tactical support class we had in 4e.
So, I think Mearls is just realizing the truth here: they won't be able to accomodate this playstyle in the new edition. Better not even pretend and handle the concept as build instead.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 07, 2013 - 8:09AM
#24
|
Date Joined:
Jun 27, 2004
|
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.
I have two issues (maybe more by the time I finish the post?):
First, ignoring the "inspiring leader" aspect of the Warlord (and Marshal - let's not pretend that the 'inspiring' part was new to 4e [says a guy who is apparently one of the 10 people to ever own the Miniatures Handbook 'for reals']) seems to me to be cutting off the poor guy's left arm, and over-emphasizing the right. Why is the tactical strategist healing? I don't know. But I do know why the Warlord (and Marshal) were "healing" - they weren't just "the tactical strategist".
Second, why is it that "the Bard inspires" means "so the Warlord can't"? Do we say "The Rogue skills, so the Ranger can't"? (I certainly hope not.) Do we say "The Barbarian smashes, so the Fighter/Paladin/Monk can't"? (Again, I certainly hope not.) Moreover, why would "inspiration" not associated with any kind of magical talent (which is an element that the Bard has taken on over the years) not have a place?
And finally (yes, I found a third thing), I have an issue with moving "healing" or "leadership" over to specialties (exclusively, at least). Well, for one, I think it continues the shameful waste of what could have been a fun game element via Themes, but for two, it makes the character concept "cost" character resources in a wholly undesirable (to me) way. This isn't just a "warlord" thing - if they took the Cleric and moved its healing off into a "healing" specialty (exclusively), I would expect the same kind of complaints (only from a different - and likely larger - group).
Feedback Disclaimer
Show
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us.
No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC).
(And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft)A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)My 4e Projects
Show
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 07, 2013 - 8:09AM
#25
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
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.
You forget that Specialties are simply a feat delivery system. How do you take both Specialties? You pick the feats that match the character you have in mind from the two Specialties, which this method of character creation could become more fleshed out as the playtest progresses. Hopefully.
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.
CORE MORE, NOT CORE BORE!
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 07, 2013 - 8:11AM
#26
|
|
|
The fact that warlord's very existence is a contentious subject internally further erodes any faith I have in this design team. I'm not against other classes being able to build a warlordish leader through feats and special class features, but the point of having a class system is that a player can choose an archetype and trust that it fulfills that function. Because this doesn't even occur to the designers and this latest playtest represents almost a year of their efforts, I'm not sure why I'm supposed to expect that this is going to get much better.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 07, 2013 - 8:12AM
#27
|
|
|
This all seems like them setup for them to announce fighter is just going to get more feats. effectively since fighters will have two specialties they can just have a warlord specialty since fighters are going to have twice as many feats they can purchase warlord and healer with them.
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
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 07, 2013 - 8:15AM
#28
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
There's another way to look at this.
If there are serveral specialties present, and several schemes about in several classes, then I think you could play an even wider range of archetypes than the 4e warlord can (on the face of it. This is going from my reading through all the warlord options in my down time at work today and yesterday).
The Warlord is one of the most... hybridable... of the 4e classes both mechanically and thematically. They would be hard pressed to manage a wider amount but the goal of being able to interact well and create that wide range of archetypes should certainly be there.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 07, 2013 - 8:15AM
#29
|
Date Joined:
Sep 25, 2009
|
Personally, I'd like it if they designed a game that worked without a healer in the party. I don't really think letting all the other classes pretend to be clerics is the solution, the solution is to eliminate the need for healing. Make a party with a second fighter in place of a cleric just as viable as the standard four: don't make the fourth player choose between cleric, bard-healer, and warlord-healer, that's better than making him play a cleric but he should be able to play anything without gimping the party (and yes, I know, the DM can just compensate for a gimped party, but don't pretend the peer pressure doesn't exist at many tables or will disappear if only you can educate everyone else to your point of view). For that matter, he should be able to play a cleric that doesn't heal without having to constantly defend himself with the much maligned "I'm not that kind of cleric."
Then, the tactical, non-healing warlord could exist as more than a fifth wheel.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 07, 2013 - 8:17AM
#30
|
Date Joined:
May 16, 2004
|
Unless the healer specialty can completely replace the Cleric, it isn't enough.
This a thousand times.
Of course an inspirational character is supposed to "heal". But "heal" in the context of "martial healing" is the wrong word. The effect I want to see is not "heal" but "get hp back", which is different. If the group I play with has no magical healing capabilities but can heal the martial way, I can always narrate the loss of hp not as big, bleeding wounds, but exhaustion, lack of luck etc. with this in mind. This is easy. And gaining hp back can be narrated easily in this concept of pure martial healing.
Which is the reason why there is no resemblance with the Bard. The Bard has always used musical magic to heal. I want non-magical healing.
Also, we already have a healing specialty and it is very weak compared to what the cleric can do with spells. I want a mechanical representation of the amount of hp a cleric can bring back, just in martial healing. Also, a Warlord should be able to remove status effects through martial healing. Like the spells.
And together with tactical options, say through special Warlord maneuvers, this will make a great class.
And a class like this offers more meaningful character choices, make a party less reliant on clerics (a big plus in the year 2013), makes a party more durable and therefore more heroic.
I get the feeling that this view is not shared by the designers. Instead, I fear we will never see meaningful non-magical healing. Which is not something that fits my style of play.
I am left to ask: Who is paying your RPG-bills at the moment, WotC? The red icon with the dragon in it will tell you.
|
|
|
