# Excerpt:  The Warlord



## Shroomy (Apr 21, 2008)

http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ex/20080421a

It's up.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 21, 2008)

Crap, beaten to it.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Apr 21, 2008)

me too, went off for a quick look at PPRuNe and Ninja'd!
Going back to read it now


----------



## Sojorn (Apr 21, 2008)

Woo.

Info junkies go!


----------



## Valerion Steele (Apr 21, 2008)

looks really nice...
thanks


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 21, 2008)

The Article said:
			
		

> Very early on in 4th Edition design, our work on character roles led us to the idea that any character serving as the party’s “cleric”—whether a bard, shaman, warlord, or whatever—needed to be as good at that job as the cleric or else we’d have yet another edition of D&D in which every party still needed a cleric.




Given this, it's weird that they're only including one Controller in the PH1....every 4e party for the first year will need a Wizard in it.


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman (Apr 21, 2008)

A class with a lot of flair, especially the Tactical path. I love the idea of a smart fighter giving big benefits to his allies.

I wish they'd described the Inspiring Word power, since that looks to be the Warlords inherent healing ability.

And for the art, enter the efreet


----------



## Acid_crash (Apr 21, 2008)

Looks quite awesome.


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman (Apr 21, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Given this, it's weird that they're only including one Controller in the PH1....every 4e party for the first year will need a Wizard in it.




That's been puzzling me for quite a while; it's why, early on, I though the Warlock was going to be a controller. Three strikers and one controller still seems a bit of an odd choice in light of WotCs stated philosophy.


----------



## AntiStateQuixote (Apr 21, 2008)

I'm a little disappointed with this preview because of the lack of at-will powers descriptions, but I *love* the idea of the Warlord class.  I'm looking forward to seeing at least one, maybe two, in our new campaign!

The commanding presence class feature is bad ass.  I also love the effect attached to the Bastion of Defense daily power.  That's gonna get a lot of use!  Woot!  Healing without prayers!

Four available daily powers: commander’s strike, furious smash, viper’s strike, and wolf pack tactics . . . I just wish we knew what they did.


----------



## Green Knight (Apr 21, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Given this, it's weird that they're only including one Controller in the PH1....every 4e party for the first year will need a Wizard in it.




Apparently, the Warlock was supposed to be the second Controller, but over time, they decided that it made for a better Striker. Hence three Strikers and one Controller. Incidentally... 



> Very early on in 4th Edition design, our work on character roles led us to the idea that any character serving as the party’s “cleric”—whether a bard, *shaman*, warlord, or whatever




Shaman, huh? Primal Leader, I take it?


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Apr 21, 2008)

I love that they even adressed the whole Warlock name discussion:



> (You might also wonder why we changed the name from marshal to warlord. The answer is that we wanted to broaden the concept from a medieval military commander to someone who might be a barbaric warchief, an elven marchwarden, or a noble-born knight-commander.)




Hehe, nice.

The more and more I here about it, the more I like it. 

Also:



> Inspiring Presence: When an ally who can see you spends an action point to take an extra action, that ally also regains lost hit points equal to one-half your level + your Charisma modifier.




The definitely is showcasing that HP in 4e, is not just physical damage. It fits quite well into the concept of fighting capacity for HP.

Also, no powers with shifting involved


----------



## bjorn2bwild (Apr 21, 2008)

Indeed, looks supremely awesome.

Are "martial weapons" now "Military weapons" ?

Wish they had chosen to include descriptions of their example at-will powers, so we could actually playtest the warlord, but it's cool.  Dig what I see so far.

47 days to go!


----------



## zoroaster100 (Apr 21, 2008)

I don't think parties will truly need a controller to be effective (even though parties with a controller might be ideal).  On the other hand, in previous editions, parties really did need a cleric or were very substandard.  I am very pleased that clerics are not so critical any more.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Apr 21, 2008)

i dunno if I missed it, and I cannot seem to find it in the PHB lite v1.31 but this







> Weapon Proficiencies: Simple melee, military melee, simple ranged



Was something I didn't realise was in 4E- simple martial etc. But I could have easily missed it


----------



## MaelStorm (Apr 21, 2008)

Nice, but quite a short excerpt (concerning powers). Again, just two build options. I hope Martial Powers will showcase extra build options for martial classes.


----------



## EvolutionKB (Apr 21, 2008)

It's good, but not as crunchy as expected.  Still can't wait until wednesday though!


----------



## jeffhartsell (Apr 21, 2008)

> Armor Proficiencies: Cloth, leather, hide, chainmail; light shield
> Weapon Proficiencies: Simple melee, military melee, simple ranged




A new weapon category, military melee. They probably did not want to confuse martial weapons with martial powers.


----------



## MaelStorm (Apr 21, 2008)

mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> i dunno if I missed it, and I cannot seem to find it in the PHB lite v1.31 but thisWas something I didn't realise was in 4E- simple martial etc. But I could have easily missed it



Looks like they changed weapon categories since the Rogue preview for being more broad. That's good news.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Apr 21, 2008)

MaelStorm said:
			
		

> Nice, but quite a short excerpt (concerning powers). Again, just two build options. I hope Martial Powers will showcase extra build options for martial classes.




We definitely will the product summary for it states:


> This book provides new *archetypal builds* for the fighter, ranger, rogue, and warlord classes, including new character powers, feats, paragon paths, and epic destinies.


----------



## breschau (Apr 21, 2008)

Warlord article said:
			
		

> Very early on in 4th Edition design, our work on character roles led us to the idea that *any character serving as the party’s “cleric”—whether a bard, shaman, warlord, or whatever—needed to be as good at that job as the cleric* or else we’d have yet another edition of D&D in which every party still needed a cleric. That led us to the idea of the Leader role, and the warlord as just one of several possible classes that can fill this role.




HA! Who called it months ago? That's right, me.


----------



## MaelStorm (Apr 21, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> We definitely will the product summary for it states:



Cool


----------



## Shroomy (Apr 21, 2008)

BTW, here's the link to the first warlord article.  I've re-posted the powers from that article too.

Pin the Foe Warlord Attack 1 
No matter where your foe turns, one of your allies is waiting for him.
Daily
Martial, Weapon
Standard Action 
Melee weapon 
Target: One creature 
Attack: Strength vs. AC 
Hit: 3[W] + Strength modifier damage. 
Effect: Until the end of the encounter, the target cannot shift if at least two of your allies (or you and one ally) are adjacent to it.

White Raven Onslaught Warlord Attack 1 
You lead the way with a powerful attack, using your success to create an opportunity for one of your allies. Each of your comrades in turn seizes on your example and begins to display true teamwork.
Daily
Martial, Weapon
Standard Action
Melee weapon 
Target: One creature 
Attack: Strength vs. AC 
Hit: 3[W] + Strength modifier damage, and you slide an adjacent ally 1 square. Until the end of the encounter, whenever you or an ally within 10 squares of you makes a successful attack, the attacker slides an adjacent ally 1 square. 
Miss: Choose one ally within 10 squares. Until the end of the encounter, the ally slides an adjacent ally 1 square after making a successful attack.

Iron Dragon Charge Warlord Attack 9 
Like a rampaging iron dragon, you hurl yourself at your adversary, landing a terrific blow that inspires your allies to charge as well.
Daily
Martial, Weapon
Standard Action
Melee weapon 
Target: One creature 
Attack: Strength vs. AC 
Special: You must charge as part of this attack. 
Hit: 3[W] + Strength modifier damage. 
Effect: Until the end of the encounter, as an immediate reaction, an ally of your choice within 5 squares of you can charge a target that you charge.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Apr 21, 2008)

MaelStorm said:
			
		

> Nice, but quite a short excerpt (concerning powers). Again, just two build options. I hope Martial Powers will showcase extra build options for martial classes.



Build options are just like 3E starting packages. They are an option on how to make an effective 1st level character. I imagine that we are going to see only 2 build options for every class; one each related to the two main stats for each class. What I want more of is an expansion to class features so there are other options which mean taking a different sort of 'Commanding Presence' (in this case) makes you better with certain powers (i.e. bonus is equal to not just +2 but 1+ ability bonus).
Edit: like Fallen Seraph pointed out I suppose


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Apr 21, 2008)

MaelStorm said:
			
		

> Looks like they changed weapon categories since the Rogue preview for being more broad. That's good news.




I wonder what the new Rogue list is like.


----------



## Talath (Apr 21, 2008)

Woah woah, did anyone notice this, or am I out of the loop and this is common knowledge?



> _Charisma should be your third best score_, so you can dabble in other warlord powers and to _improve your Will defense._




Charisma to Will defense, eh?

I'm okay with that, if they regulate Wisdom to the province of insight, perception, and intuition.


----------



## Ondo (Apr 21, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Given this, it's weird that they're only including one Controller in the PH1....every 4e party for the first year will need a Wizard in it.



Andy Collins talks a little about why they made that decision in this podcast at about the 22:45 mark.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Apr 21, 2008)

Talath said:
			
		

> Woah woah, did anyone notice this, or am I out of the loop and this is common knowledge?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Out of the loop I am afraid:
Fort Def: best of STR or CON modifier
Reflex Def: beast of INT or DEX modifier
Will defence: best of WiS or CHA modifier


----------



## Green Knight (Apr 21, 2008)

So so far, we know the Warlord has the following power choices at 1st level. 

*AT-WILL POWERS* 
Commander's Strike 
Furious Smash 
Viper's Strike 
Wolf Pack Tactics 

*ENCOUNTER POWERS* 
Guarding Attack 
Warlord's Favor 

*DAILY POWERS* 
Bastion of Defense 
Lead the Attack 
Pin the For 
White Raven Onslaught 

I wonder how many more choices are available at 1st level?


----------



## Green Knight (Apr 21, 2008)

breschau said:
			
		

> HA! Who called it months ago? That's right, me.




What'd you call?


----------



## Talath (Apr 21, 2008)

mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> Out of the loop I am afraid:
> Fort Def: best of STR or CON modifier
> Reflex Def: beast of INT or DEX modifier
> Will defence: best of WiS or CHA modifier




Well, good to know. 

I'd ask where this was revealed, but it's irrelevant. I like this pairing of two ability scores to a Defense, and chosing the best.


----------



## bjorn2bwild (Apr 21, 2008)

I'm gonna go ahead and guess that wolf pack tactics will work something like this:

Hit: 1[w]+ str and an ally may shift one square.


----------



## MaelStorm (Apr 21, 2008)

Green Knight said:
			
		

> So so far, we know the Warlord has the following power choices at 1st level.
> 
> *AT-WILL POWERS*
> Commander's Strike
> ...



 Probably a few more encounter power.


----------



## Colmarr (Apr 21, 2008)

*Odd skill choices*

Did anyone else notice the odd skill recommendations?

It is recommended that the Inspiring (Cha-focused) Warlord take History, while the Tactical (Int-focused) Warlord should take Intimidate.

Odd, IMO.

EDIT: Maybe not _supremely_ odd, because the Inspiring Warlord has diplomacy (maybe they figured there was no need for diplomacy and intimidate) and the Tactical Warlord has history (maybe they figured that out of diplomacy and intimidate, intimidate was the better fit for that build).


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Apr 21, 2008)

Colmarr said:
			
		

> Did anyone else notice the odd skill recommendations?
> 
> It is recommended that the Inspiring (Cha-focused) Warlord take History, while the Tactical (Int-focused) Warlord should take Intimidate.
> 
> Odd, IMO.



They both get History, Charisma-focused gets Diplomacy while Intelligence-focused gets Intimidate. Which fits with Inspiring (you need good diplomatic skills to inspire people) and Tactical (if you know your correct in your assumptions sometimes it take force to get people to see it).


----------



## breschau (Apr 21, 2008)

Green Knight said:
			
		

> What'd you call?




Awhile back there was some debate over whether non-cleric leaders would be as good at healing as the cleric. After watching the videos from the initial 4E announcement and GamerZero interviews, I called that all leaders would be just as good at healing as the cleric.

<happy dance>


----------



## Celebrim (Apr 21, 2008)

1) It's not an adequate replacement for a cleric.  Unless you play an inspiring build, you have no initial ability to bring healing beyond that of the heal skill itself, and even the inspiring build has a very limited healing utility.  And there hasn't been alot of sign that raise dead and similar miraculous cleric abilities are on the table for Warlords.
2) It doesn't matter so much, because the combination of healing surge mechanics, rest mechanics, and no long term conditions elimenate much of the need for clerical healing anway.
3) It certainly easier to get by without a cleric.  But based on some of the play test comments and what we've seen so far, it still seems to me that the optimal party contains a cleric and probably support from a secondary healer like a Paladin or Warlord.  In fact, I'm wondering whether or not a 5 person party would benefit most from having _two_ leader roles, plus say one defender, one controller, and one striker.   And you could probably replace the striker with a second controller or defender alot more easily than you could get by without having a leader.


----------



## small pumpkin man (Apr 21, 2008)

Hrmm, that's a very short class skill list.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Apr 21, 2008)

Well, any of the Warlords can choose:

*Inspiring Presence:* When an ally who can see you spends an action point to take an extra action, that ally also regains lost hit points equal to one-half your level + your Charisma modifier.

So that gives you more HP as well.


----------



## small pumpkin man (Apr 21, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> 1) It's not an adequate replacement for a cleric.  Unless you play an inspiring build, you have no initial ability to bring healing beyond that of the heal skill itself, and even the inspiring build has a very limited healing utility.  And there hasn't been alot of sign that raise dead and similar miraculous cleric abilities are on the table for Warlords.
> 2) It doesn't matter so much, because the combination of healing surge mechanics, rest mechanics, and no long term conditions elimenate much of the need for clerical healing anway.
> 3) It certainly easier to get by without a cleric.  But based on some of the play test comments and what we've seen so far, it still seems to me that the optimal party contains a cleric and probably support from a secondary healer like a Paladin or Warlord.  In fact, I'm wondering whether or not a 5 person party would benefit most from having _two_ leader roles, plus say one defender, one controller, and one striker.   And you could probably replace the striker with a second controller or defender alot more easily than you could get by without having a leader.



I would assume "inspiring word" is pretty much the same as "healing word". Which would put them on the same/similar level.


----------



## Sojorn (Apr 21, 2008)

> *Inspiring Word*
> Using the inspiring word power, warlords can grant their comrades additional resilience with nothing more than a shout of encouragement.



Seeing as it uses the same naming format as healing word and is conspicuously absent in crunch, I'm guessing this is the Warlord's main healing power.


----------



## Ten (Apr 21, 2008)

Hmmm, I may have missed something on the earlier classes, but it just struck me now how int plays no role in determining your class skills.



> Trained Skills: From the class skills list below, choose four trained skills at 1st level.
> Class Skills: Athletics (Str), Diplomacy (Cha), Endurance (Con), Heal (Wis), History (Int), Intimidate (Cha)


----------



## Sir Brennen (Apr 21, 2008)

> gains a +2 *power bonus *to AC against the target’s attacks
> 
> gain a +1 *power bonus* to all defenses until the end of the encounter
> 
> gains a +2 *power bonus* to attack rolls against the target until the end of your next turn



So, is this how the plethora of stacking bonuses from 3E going to be addressed? Powers grant a power bonus, regardless of class? I'm guessing power bonuses  don't stack with each other.

Interesting.


----------



## breschau (Apr 21, 2008)

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> I would assume "inspiring word" is pretty much the same as "healing word". Which would put them on the same/similar level.




There's that, and...



			
				Warlord article said:
			
		

> Warlord Overview
> 
> Characteristics: You are a strong warrior in melee, able to stand beside the fighter or paladin in your party. Your powers grant allies immediate actions (usually moves or attacks), provide bonuses to attack or defense, *and grant healing in the midst of battle*.




This.


----------



## Celebrim (Apr 21, 2008)

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> I would assume "inspiring word" is pretty much the same as "healing word". Which would put them on the same/similar level.




Hmmm... that sounds reasonable.

It brings up a humorous scenario in my mind.

Cleric: Be healed, my child.
Heathen: Eh. That's not so impressive.  
Cleric: No?  The hand of the divine healing your body isn't impressive?
Heathn: Not really. Bob healed me up just as well with a kind word and a pat on the back.  
Cleric: Really??  What is Bob?  Some sort of demigod?
Heathen: No, I think he's just a 1st level warlod.  Anyway, if that is all you are offering, I think I'll just go worship Bob instead.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 21, 2008)

> That's been puzzling me for quite a while; it's why, early on, I though the Warlock was going to be a controller. Three strikers and one controller still seems a bit of an odd choice in light of WotCs stated philosophy.




I listened to the podcast where they tried to explain it, but really, they didn't explain it. They just basically said "Every party will need a wizard just like every party needed a cleric ('they'll have to use different tactics'), mostly because we thought we needed an iconic mix of classes rather than to allow two choices for controllers."

It's couched in some catchprase-speak, but still, every party will need a wizard in 4e as much as every party needed a cleric in 3e.

They need to stop bragging about how they've "solved" this problem in 4e. They didn't. They've shifted it onto a different role, a different class, but for any ideal party, someone will still "have" to play the Wizard.

/mild annoyance


----------



## Falling Icicle (Apr 21, 2008)

It seems that each class has one primary and two secondary attributes, with a different build option for each secondary attribute. Rogues' primary attribute is Dex and they can be brawny (Str) or trickster (Cha), while Warlords' primary attribute is Str and they can be inspiring (Cha) or tactical (Int). 

Interesting.


----------



## Darth Cyric (Apr 21, 2008)

Well, to be fair, a Wizard wasn't as essential as a Cleric in editions past. A boon, definitely, but not essential.


----------



## breschau (Apr 21, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I listened to the podcast where they tried to explain it, but really, they didn't explain it. They just basically said "Every party will need a wizard just like every party needed a cleric ('they'll have to use different tactics'), mostly because we thought we needed an iconic mix of classes rather than to allow two choices for controllers."
> 
> It's couched in some catchprase-speak, but still, every party will need a wizard in 4e as much as every party needed a cleric in 3e.
> 
> ...




At least the recognize the issue and it will be fixed in PHBII. Not perfect, but it's something.


----------



## VannATLC (Apr 21, 2008)

I'm sorry, I see no equivalency in requiring a wizard, to requiring a cleric, in 3.x.

A wizard will be helpful, and add nice oomph, but I do not see why. (At the levels we've currently seen) be necessary.


----------



## baberg (Apr 21, 2008)

EnWorld is slow as molasses in January - that must mean something new was leaked! 

I'm starting to get a little worried about all of these +1 and +1+INT bonuses, plus terrain and flanking and...  Seems like it could get really, really hard to keep all of this straight.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Apr 21, 2008)

I could see there being lots of slots to add bonuses and negatives on character sheets to keep things straight.


----------



## FadedC (Apr 21, 2008)

Sir Brennen said:
			
		

> So, is this how the plethora of stacking bonuses from 3E going to be addressed? Powers grant a power bonus, regardless of class? I'm guessing power bonuses  don't stack with each other.
> 
> Interesting.




Yeah it would appear that there may be only 2 types of named bonuses in the game....power and enhancement.


----------



## Sojorn (Apr 21, 2008)

The raw powers are a little confusing because they don't have the actual numbers written out.

The great news is that Int or Str will never, never, EVER change in the middle of combat.


----------



## Gundark (Apr 21, 2008)

it's sunday!?


----------



## neceros (Apr 21, 2008)

Talath said:
			
		

> Well, good to know.
> 
> I'd ask where this was revealed, but it's irrelevant. I like this pairing of two ability scores to a Defense, and chosing the best.



http://www.neceros.com/forum/index.php?automodule=downloads&showfile=2

My Character Sheet reveals (As far as we know, at least) How a game will look and feel. I've been able to determine a lot about how my character will feel by just looking at the sheets available so far.

Let me know what you think.


----------



## thatdarnedbob (Apr 21, 2008)

In the sidebar, it is indicated that Bane is a new core god, and I assume that this is the same Bane as in FR. Was this known already?


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Apr 21, 2008)

thatdarnedbob said:
			
		

> In the sidebar, it is indicated that Bane is a new core god, and I assume that this is the same Bane as in FR. Was this known already?




Yup, but it was from a early Design & Development article, here is what it said about Bane:


> *Bane:* Here's another god whose placeholder name just stuck, despite some reservations. We wanted an evil war god in the pantheon, and without Heironeous, Hextor didn't make a lot of sense. We wanted the kind of heavily militaristic god whose temples you might find among non-evil societies who have spent long years at war, as well as among hobgoblins. We wanted a god who embodied just the sort of tyrannical dictatorship that Bane stands for in the Forgotten Realms. We started calling him Bane as a placeholder. He went through a number of different, unsatisfying names. Finally, someone said we should just call him Bane. So Bane he remained.


----------



## Vempyre (Apr 21, 2008)

> Bastion of Defense Warlord Attack 1
> Honorable warriors never fall!
> 
> Daily Martial, Weapon
> ...




I am confused. Does the "effect" happens on a miss, hit, or both?


----------



## bjorn2bwild (Apr 21, 2008)

Vempyre said:
			
		

> I am confused. Does the "effect" happens on a miss, hit, or both?




Happens regardless of if the power hits or misses.


----------



## neceros (Apr 21, 2008)

Vempyre said:
			
		

> I am confused. Does the "effect" happens on a miss, hit, or both?



Both.


----------



## bramadan (Apr 21, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Hmmm... that sounds reasonable.
> 
> It brings up a humorous scenario in my mind.
> 
> ...




Not to go ways down the old "what are HP" path but I think that it will be reasonable to assume that both Cleric and Warlord's *in-combat* healing will have to do mostly with raising spirits and moral of their party members. 

Cleric: Do not fall back, sun of Pelor shines upon us - we shall prevail !
Warlord: Comrades, freedom of Aquila is in your hands. Grit your teeth and fight on !


C


----------



## Stalker0 (Apr 21, 2008)

I won't lie, definitely disappointed about no at-will powers. I mean WOTC knows tons of people are showing people 4e through the pregens, we already have a lot of warlord dailies known. Instead of 2 dailies, couldn't we have gotten 2 at-wills and actually play the class?

Alright that said, lets get into it.

Skill List: First thing I noticed is a small list of skills. They choose 4 out of a list of 6. Then again, that could just be for the initial selection, skill training doesn't seem to require a skill be on your class list (see stealth for the wizard).

Initiative Aura: This kind of aura I'm okay with. Reason:

1) Its a large aura. Little chance the whole party won't get the bonus.

2) Its a rare aura. Initiative is called once per battle. Its not like perception when every room might have a check.

3) Its a nice bonus. +2 to initiative is nothing to sneeze at, making it easier to remember. Beats the heck out of +1 to perception

Class Features:
The action point bonuses are a good way to go for the warlord and both are good and unique. The charisma one is more generally useful, hitpoints are always good. But the attack bonus one can help on a big attack like a daily. I could see a intelligent warlord (int 16) combine with the pregen warlock who has the action surge feat. You could get a +6 to attack roll for the warlocks daily power!!

Powers:
Those new warlord powers seem very nice, especially the dailies. Hit or Miss, I get a +1 to attack rolls for the whole combat??!!! Yes please!!


----------



## MerricB (Apr 21, 2008)

Vempyre said:
			
		

> I am confused. Does the "effect" happens on a miss, hit, or both?




I expect "both"

Hit: only occurs on hit
Miss: only occurs on miss
Effect: always occurs.

Very cool.


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman (Apr 21, 2008)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> Powers:
> Those new warlord powers seem very nice, especially the dailies. Hit or Miss, I get a +1 to attack rolls for the whole combat??!!! Yes please!!




I noticed Lead the Attack is a great "Kill the solo monster" ability. Assuming the warlord has an Int of 16, a success will give everyone within 5 squares +4 to hit the monster for the rest of the encounter. How would that have helped the DDXP players against the dragon?


----------



## Spenser (Apr 21, 2008)

Sojorn said:
			
		

> Seeing as [inspiring word] uses the same naming format as healing word and is conspicuously absent in crunch, I'm guessing this is the Warlord's main healing power.



I sure hope so. Because if it isn't, everyone is going to take a cleric anyway. Clerics aren't needed to heal up between fights, which is good, but being able to heal twice per combat as a minor action is just incredibly powerful. 

As for the wizard being "necessary", that's only if his AoE turns out to be *really* good compared to everyone else's.  Otherwise, I don't see why you couldn't just go with another striker. Certainly in my group's playtests, he didn't seem like a must have.


----------



## Stalker0 (Apr 21, 2008)

Scholar & Brutalman said:
			
		

> I noticed Lead the Attack is a great "Kill the solo monster" ability. Assuming the warlord has an Int of 16, a success will give everyone within 5 squares +4 to hit the monster for the rest of the encounter. How would that have helped the DDXP players against the dragon?




The interesting thing about this is that makes the warlord's daily a HUGE swing power, which is something WOTC said they were trying to keep away from. I mean if we assume a dragon fight lasts 10 rounds (the one I ran lasted at least 20) and the warlord opens up with his daily, then a hit or miss is the difference between a +4 to 40 or so attack rolls!!


----------



## MaelStorm (Apr 21, 2008)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> I won't lie, definitely disappointed about no at-will powers. I mean WOTC knows tons of people are showing people 4e through the pregens, we already have a lot of warlord dailies known. Instead of 2 dailies, couldn't we have gotten 2 at-wills and actually play the class?



Spot on remark. Despite my enthusiasm, I too, am disappointed about this.


----------



## FadedC (Apr 21, 2008)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> The interesting thing about this is that makes the warlord's daily a HUGE swing power, which is something WOTC said they were trying to keep away from. I mean if we assume a dragon fight lasts 10 rounds (the one I ran lasted at least 20) and the warlord opens up with his daily, then a hit or miss is the difference between a +4 to 40 or so attack rolls!!




While that is potentially really strong, keep in mind that 

1) This does not stack with other power bonuses to hit such as the one provided by the cleric
2) Getting +4 requires a 16 inteligence which is certainly doable, but is rather high for a secondary stat.
3) Even when you miss you do give everyone +1


----------



## fuindordm (Apr 21, 2008)

Hmmm...

Armor Proficiencies: Cloth, leather, hide, chainmail; light shield

No plate? Seems odd...


----------



## zephen18 (Apr 21, 2008)

fuindordm said:
			
		

> Hmmm...
> 
> Armor Proficiencies: Cloth, leather, hide, chainmail; light shield
> 
> No plate? Seems odd...





I would suspect, that unless you get it through a feat, only defenders will get auto access to plate armor.  Although why the fighter DDXP character didn't have it I don't know.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Apr 21, 2008)

fuindordm said:
			
		

> Hmmm...
> 
> Armor Proficiencies: Cloth, leather, hide, chainmail; light shield
> 
> No plate? Seems odd...



Not especially.  Armor is given to those who needs it most.  In the following order:

Defenders
Leaders
Strikers
Controllers


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Apr 21, 2008)

zephen18 said:
			
		

> I would suspect, that unless you get it through a feat, only defenders will get auto access to plate armor.  Although why the fighter DDXP character didn't have it I don't know.



Cause he has scale instead.


----------



## Stalker0 (Apr 21, 2008)

zephen18 said:
			
		

> I would suspect, that unless you get it through a feat, only defenders will get auto access to plate armor.  Although why the fighter DDXP character didn't have it I don't know.




Its possible access to plate armor is a paladin's class benefit.


----------



## Green Knight (Apr 21, 2008)

When it comes to the one Controller issue, that particular peculiartity will only last for a year. Come the PHB 2, we'll probably have at least one more choice for a Controller, if not two or three. The Sorcerer (probably a Primal Controller), maybe the Psion (Psi Controller), and possibly that Divine Controller that's been mentioned a couple of times. So once the PHB 2 is out, we may have anywhere from 2-4 Controllers. Unfortunate that we're stuck for a while with just one Controller, but hey, it's only a year. And in the meantime we'll have three Defenders (counting the Swordmage which comes out two or three months after the PHB), two Leaders, and three Strikers to work with in addition to that one Controller. 

And yeah, it does suck that we got no At-Will Powers out of this. I was getting pretty excited reading the article at the prospect of being able to write up a Warlord character. But nope, no such luck.  Ah well.


----------



## incantator (Apr 21, 2008)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> The interesting thing about this is that makes the warlord's daily a HUGE swing power, which is something WOTC said they were trying to keep away from. I mean if we assume a dragon fight lasts 10 rounds (the one I ran lasted at least 20) and the warlord opens up with his daily, then a hit or miss is the difference between a +4 to 40 or so attack rolls!!



 The flip side to using Lead the Attack to defeat a solo monster is that if the "Big Encounter" that your party was saving their dailies for is not a solo encounter and doesn't have elite monsters either, you will probably end up being much less effective as the target you use it on will die quickly.  Also, in combination with Warlord’s Favor, you are not getting the full bonus of both because they will likely not stack.


----------



## Ipissimus (Apr 21, 2008)

zephen18 said:
			
		

> I would suspect, that unless you get it through a feat, only defenders will get auto access to plate armor.  Although why the fighter DDXP character didn't have it I don't know.




If it's anything like previous editions, a 1st level character starting out with plate mail is very rare due to the gp cost. It could be that after buying the wicked axe and shield, scale was the best she could afford.

Whereas the Halfling Paladin is only purchasing a short sword and small shield might be able to purchase small plate.

Assuming equipment's anything like previous editions, that is.


----------



## Kzach (Apr 21, 2008)

I like that Bastion of Defence power. You can pretty much guarantee that most warlords will have at least a 16 Charisma given so many of their powers are Charisma related.

So at 1st-level, Bastion of Defence gives 3W damage, +1 to all defences for the encounter and +8 temporary hit points to everyone.

Sweet.

All up, I must say, I was underwhelmed by the entire concept of the warlord until seeing this article. Seeing the abilities in print and actually imagining them being played out, I can now say that I'd welcome a warlord in any party I played in and might even consider playing one myself.


----------



## Jack99 (Apr 21, 2008)

bramadan said:
			
		

> Cleric: Do not fall back, sun of Pelor shines upon us - we shall prevail !
> Warlord: Comrades, freedom of Aquila is in your hands. Grit your teeth and fight on !




What a wuss warlord. Sounds like a cleric. My warlord will be more like this:

Get on your feet, you *[censored due to the grandmother clause]*, or I will be having fun with your pretty little wife tonight!


----------



## Jack99 (Apr 21, 2008)

FadedC said:
			
		

> Yeah it would appear that there may be only 2 types of named bonuses in the game....power and enhancement.




Pretty sure I saw an item somewhere, which gave the wielder an "item bonus". At work atm, so can't check my files.

Cheers


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 21, 2008)

I was not particularly impressed with the Warlord Preview itself - I would have liked to see more powers, especially an at-will one. But maybe this is done intentional, so we won't be able to make a 1st level D&D PHB complete. 

But nothing I saw made me not interested in the Warlord.  I want to play one of them. Possibly more then before. It looked to me as if the Warlord is also a skilled fighter, and that means it fits the archetype I want to play very well. 

Maybe it's a bit early for that, but if we compare the Rogue and the Warlord skills, I see a certain pattern: It seems all classes get to pick 4 skills. The Rogue only gets 2 "free" skills. 
I guess I'd have to check the pregens if this holds up.



			
				Stalker0 said:
			
		

> The interesting thing about this is that makes the warlord's daily a HUGE swing power, which is something WOTC said they were trying to keep away from. I mean if we assume a dragon fight lasts 10 rounds (the one I ran lasted at least 20) and the warlord opens up with his daily, then a hit or miss is the difference between a +4 to 40 or so attack rolls!!



I understood that daily powers are really the big guns you pull out if you feel that things will get or have gotten hairy. 


Outside of Warlocky stuff: 
I am also a little disappointed that we will have only one Controller in the first PHB. But if I had the choice between only one Leader or only one Controller, I'd pick the latter. I never liked playing Clerics (and this has little to do with their power, but a lot with "how" they have to be played), but certainly enjoy playing wizards or sorcerers. 
Still, it would have been nicer if there would have been two strikers, two controllers, two leaders and two defenders. You get a choice for every role.

EDIT: Oh, and the Warlord Quote on the top of the article, it is classic and old. But it's still awesome. If that's what Warlords say, they have already sold me the class. Or would have, if they wouldn't have already done so in the Preview Books.


> “Onward to victory! They cannot stand before us!”


----------



## FabioMilitoPagliara (Apr 21, 2008)

so we are assuming that inspiring word works similary to the healing word?

something like

Inspiring Word
You shout to your allies to hold on and fight back, helping them to ignore pain.
Encounter (Special) ✦ Martial, Healing
Special: You can use this power twice per encounter, but only
once per round.
Minor Action Close burst 5
Target: You or one ally
Effect: The target can spend a healing surge and regain an
additional 1d6 + Cha hit points.


or instead more like was suggested

Inspiring Word
You shout to your allies to hold on and fight back, helping them to ignore pain.
Encounter ✦ Martial, Healing
Minor Action Close burst ??
Target: Your allies in range
Effect: The targets can spend a healing surge and regain
additional hit points equal to your Cha bonus.


----------



## FabioMilitoPagliara (Apr 21, 2008)

On controllers:
I think the ready (like in playtested) controllers were Shadow and/or Primal so they were out of the book by definition

while a Divine or Martial Controller are possible they may just be still in the work

another Arcane Controller? don't know


----------



## hong (Apr 21, 2008)

Jack99 said:
			
		

> What a wuss warlord. Sounds like a cleric. My warlord will be more like this:
> 
> Get on your feet, you *[censored due to the grandmother clause]*, or I will be having fun with your pretty little wife tonight!



 Allan Border to Dean Jones, at the tied test in Madras in 1986: "if you can't hack it, let's get a Queenslander out here -- get me Greg Ritchie!"


----------



## FadedC (Apr 21, 2008)

Jack99 said:
			
		

> Pretty sure I saw an item somewhere, which gave the wielder an "item bonus". At work atm, so can't check my files.
> 
> Cheers




Hmm...looking at the items on the monsters and more page I see some that mention an item bonus and some that mention a power bonus. It appears that permanent bonuses are item bonuses and activated bonuses are power bonuses.


----------



## Stalker0 (Apr 21, 2008)

Kzach said:
			
		

> I like that Bastion of Defence power. You can pretty much guarantee that most warlords will have at least a 16 Charisma given so many of their powers are Charisma related.




Ah but here's the catch. The ability for a warlord's powers to hit AND the damage they deal is based on strength. So while charisma gives a nice secondary benefit, strength is still very important.

Which is exactly how I like it. I can easily see a person playing a high strength warlord, or a moderate strength high charisma (or int) warlord.


----------



## Lurker59 (Apr 21, 2008)

The bonuses I can recall seeing so far are feat, item, power, and racial. Also what appears to be a generic bonus. Any there any other confirmed ones?


----------



## Green Knight (Apr 21, 2008)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> Ah but here's the catch. The ability for a warlord's powers to hit AND the damage they deal is based on strength. So while charisma gives a nice secondary benefit, strength is still very important.
> 
> Which is exactly how I like it. I can easily see a person playing a high strength warlord, or a moderate strength high charisma (or int) warlord.




Depends on the race, I suppose. A Dragonborn will pretty easily be able to get both Str 16 and Cha 16. If Half-Elves get +2 Cha and +2 to any other stat, then they'll be able to do the same. Any other race who gets a Cha bonus, while having to pay a little extra for Str 16, will probably be able to do it, too. 

Assuming Point Buy Method B from PHB Lite, you can do the following... 

Dragonborn Warlord (+2 Str, +2 Cha) 
STR 16 +3 
CON 14 +2 
DEX 10 +0 
INT 14 +2 
WIS 10 +0 
CHA 16 +3 

Half-Elf Warlord (+2 Cha, +2 Any) 
STR 16 +3 
CON 14 +2 
DEX 10 +0 
INT 14 +2 
WIS 10 +0 
CHA 16 +3 

Tiefling Warlord (+2 Int, +2 Cha) 
STR 16 +3 
CON 14 +2 
DEX 10 +0 
INT 14 +2 
WIS 9 -1 
CHA 16 +3 

Human Warlord (Assuming +2 to any one stat) 
STR 16 +3 
CON 14 +2 
DEX 10 +0 
INT 11 +0 
WIS 10 +0 
CHA 16 +3 

Halfling Warlord (+2 Dex, _POSSIBLY_ +2 Cha [Either that or +2 Wis]) 
STR 16 +3 
CON 14 +2 
DEX 10 +0 
INT 13 +1 
WIS 10 +0 
CHA 16 +3


----------



## VannATLC (Apr 21, 2008)

I hope Multiclassing works well.

This gives me even more hope for my Warlord/Wizard (Warmage) character


----------



## vagabundo (Apr 21, 2008)

Nice preview, pity about the @ wills, some of them sounded pretty good. 

I'm pretty meh about the class, but it is a personal decision, I'm meh about playing clerics too. I can see how some people would like Warlords, in fact one of my players stated that he wants his first character to be a Dragonborn Warlord.

Good Job WOTC, keep them coming, looking forward to Wednesday.


----------



## AllisterH (Apr 21, 2008)

We're too low level to see how dependant or not we are on a controller. In all previous editions of D&D, you could probably play without a wizard up to level 6 (no chance of not playing with a cleric since level 2 IMO)

I'm also interested in seeing how they worked on multiclassing (but given that we do have about 6 more weeks, we potentially might get lucky) but it looks like they got around the potential stacking problem of 3.5 but in a way, it does make life harder for future designers (they can't simply slap together a power and have it be used).

As I called it, WOTC is starting to ramp up its advertising/preview for 4E and while I still think it is a little early (6 weeks to go? Most movies/videogames don't really push until week 3 or 4), I'm not going to complain  

Paragon paths on Wednesday...Cool.


----------



## FireLance (Apr 21, 2008)

I must say that Guarding Attack sounds very similar to the paladin's Shielding Smite: encounter, weapon, melee range, ability vs AC, 2[W] + ability damage, an ally gains a bonus to AC.

The paladin's is slightly better though, because he can apply the bonus to any ally within 5 squares, and he doesn't have to hit with the power.


----------



## cangrejoide (Apr 21, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Hmmm... that sounds reasonable.
> 
> It brings up a humorous scenario in my mind.
> 
> ...




it could also lead to this:

Heathen: Bob  please help me!! I went with a harlot last night and now it burns when I pee!!!
Warlord: Errmm...
Heathen: Can't you you give me a pat and shout something inspiring?
Warlord: Please go away. please.
Heathen: Did I mention she gave me crabs too?
Warlord: (Runs away)


----------



## Plane Sailing (Apr 21, 2008)

mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> Build options are just like 3E starting packages. They are an option on how to make an effective 1st level character.




I think they are much more than that - although they give "recommended trained skills" the key thing that we see here is that it is sorta 'two classes in one' - the build option that you choose gives (a) a different bonus ability (b) better effects from certain powers.

We saw the same thing with Rogues (artful dodger/brutal scoundrel) where certain powers get better bonuses for one "Rogue build" or the other.


----------



## Steely Dan (Apr 21, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> We saw the same thing with Rogues (artful dodger/brutal scoundrel) where certain powers get better bonuses for one "Rogue build" or the other.




Yeah, so do we think the ranger has an archery or TWF route?


----------



## jasin (Apr 21, 2008)

So (a tactical) Warlord's Favour grants +(1 + Int) to attacks to one ally until the end of the warlord's next turn.

I wonder what happens if the warlord keeps delaying.


----------



## Voss (Apr 21, 2008)

FadedC said:
			
		

> Yeah it would appear that there may be only 2 types of named bonuses in the game....power and enhancement.




And feat and racial.
(from the feats article and elves article respectively)


Overall, I like what this shows of the class (no forced skill choices, Woohoo)

Disappointed by the lack of text on inspiring word and at-will powers, however.  

Combat Leader irks me a bit. I'm still not happy with these 'aura' bonuses floating around.

We need to see more, but I think I'd rather have a warlord than a cleric in the party. The cleric gets tied up in  a lot of energy effects, while the warlord seems to be throwing out bonuses more often.

Though I could easily see going for a really effective party and just ditching the wizard and taking both.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 21, 2008)

Steely Dan said:
			
		

> Yeah, so do we think the ranger has an archery or TWF route?



I hope so.  There was a line somewhere along the blog posts and excerpts and previews that said something to the effect of no two-weapon fighting would make the ranger cry.


----------



## FireLance (Apr 21, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I think they are much more than that - although they give "recommended trained skills" the key thing that we see here is that it is sorta 'two classes in one' - the build option that you choose gives (a) a different bonus ability (b) better effects from certain powers.
> 
> We saw the same thing with Rogues (artful dodger/brutal scoundrel) where certain powers get better bonuses for one "Rogue build" or the other.



I think they are two slightly different things. The alternate class abilities (rogue tactics, commanding presence) give a choice between two "flavors" of the core class. The build options each use one of the alternate class abilities, and mixes that with a sample collection of feats and powers.

The build options are more "optional" than the alternate class abilities, as you do not have to follow up on the "build" suggested by your alternate class ability (you could play an Inspiring Warlord, but choose White Raven Onslaught as you daily instead of Bastion of Defense, for example). There could even be other build options for each of the alternate class abilities that mix them with other feats and powers.

You do have to choose one of the alternate class abilities though, and it is unclear whether future supplements will have more alternate class abilities, and whether it will be possible to gain the advantages of two or more (if any) alternate class abilities (through feats, etc.)


----------



## Steely Dan (Apr 21, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> I hope so.  There was a line somewhere along the blog posts and excerpts and previews that said something to the effect of no two-weapon fighting would make the ranger cry.




Totally, so it looks like no special TWF action for our little rogue…?


----------



## hong (Apr 21, 2008)

Steely Dan said:
			
		

> Totally, so it looks like no special TWF action for our little rogue…?



 I don't believe it. You need TWF to play Taki.


----------



## Ulthwithian (Apr 21, 2008)

*ROFLMAO @ Hong* Priceless.

I'll echo what a lot of people said and say I'd like to have seen at-will powers, but it's much better to have some/much crunch than no crunch. 

So far, we have 2 options for Rogues, 2 options for Warlords, and _4_ options for Warlocks (the different pacts).  It is theorized that the Fighter chooses between 2H and Sword-and-board, so those could be his options.  The Wizard chooses among his implements.

Ranger _looks_ like it should be ranged or TWF, based on previous editions, but that's honestly all we have to go with on that score.  The main concern I have with that one is that would make the Ranger's power list very schismatic; i.e., they wouldn't be nearly as interchangeable as, say, the Warlord's are.

Do we know the 'play choice' considerations for the Paladin or Cleric yet?


----------



## neceros (Apr 21, 2008)

jasin said:
			
		

> So (a tactical) Warlord's Favour grants +(1 + Int) to attacks to one ally until the end of the warlord's next turn.
> 
> I wonder what happens if the warlord keeps delaying.



Delay or not your turn will come back around.  You can only delay your action when it's your turn, so...


----------



## Nikosandros (Apr 21, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I think they are much more than that - although they give "recommended trained skills" the key thing that we see here is that it is sorta 'two classes in one' - the build option that you choose gives (a) a different bonus ability (b) better effects from certain powers.
> 
> We saw the same thing with Rogues (artful dodger/brutal scoundrel) where certain powers get better bonuses for one "Rogue build" or the other.



Actually, the builds are just suggestions on feats and powers to take. You are thinking of _Rogue Tactics_ or _Commanding Presence_ that have mechanical effects.


----------



## Mirtek (Apr 21, 2008)

Ulthwithian said:
			
		

> Do we know the 'play choice' considerations for the Paladin or Cleric yet?



I hope the cleric can choose between a melee and a caster build


----------



## Hussar (Apr 21, 2008)

jasin said:
			
		

> So (a tactical) Warlord's Favour grants +(1 + Int) to attacks to one ally until the end of the warlord's next turn.
> 
> I wonder what happens if the warlord keeps delaying.




If it's anything like 3e, nothing.  You cannot delay past the end of a round.


----------



## med stud (Apr 21, 2008)

I think clerics will have their builds defined by what god they worship. Sort of like warlocks and their pacts.

I agree with Mirtek in that it would be nice to see a caster cleric, I think D&D has lacked priests without weapons and armour for too long.


----------



## Mirtek (Apr 21, 2008)

med stud said:
			
		

> I agree with Mirtek in that it would be nice to see a caster cleric, I think D&D has lacked priests without weapons and armour for too long.



I have no doubt there will be a caster cleric. To me the pregen cleric is a caster cleric (even if he also has this one melee attack). I hope we will see the melee cleric who is not throwing lances/cascades of light/fire whatever


----------



## Ghaerdon Fain (Apr 21, 2008)

VannATLC said:
			
		

> I hope Multiclassing works well.
> 
> This gives me even more hope for my Warlord/Wizard (Warmage) character




After listening to Andy Collins on The Tome ep 52, it seems that we might be waiting a while before multi-classing makes an appearance.  The 4E team just doesn't want to have a swiss army knife character. So I doubt it will be in.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 21, 2008)

Yeah, they recognized the problem, but 3e recognized the problem, too. You had bards and druids and paladins who could heal here and there, enough to use wands for the party at least (and wands were better than a cleric in between encounters), and later had shamans and favored souls and whatnots.



> 'm sorry, I see no equivalency in requiring a wizard, to requiring a cleric, in 3.x.
> 
> A wizard will be helpful, and add nice oomph, but I do not see why. (At the levels we've currently seen) be necessary.




A cleric in 3e was helpful, and added nice oomph, but it wasn't necessary. A PC party could easily get by without one, they'd just lack certain combat oomph and would have to use different tactics -- exactly the same thing Andy Collins said that a 4e party without a wizard would have to deal with. 

Any problem that there was about this in 3e is not solved in 4e, and telling us about how the Warlord is in because the party needs more leader options just points out some of that 4e schizophrenia -- "Roles need options, so the Warlord is in! Iconicness takes precedence over options, so Controller II is out!"

Ah?


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 21, 2008)

med stud said:
			
		

> I think clerics will have their builds defined by what god they worship. Sort of like warlocks and their pacts.
> 
> I agree with Mirtek in that it would be nice to see a caster cleric, I think D&D has lacked priests without weapons and armour for too long.




Honestly, to me, a cleric will always be someone who gained spellcasting at second level.


----------



## Cirex (Apr 21, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> A cleric in 3e was helpful, and added nice oomph, but it wasn't necessary. A PC party could easily get by without one, they'd just lack certain combat oomph and would have to use different tactics -- exactly the same thing Andy Collins said that a 4e party without a wizard would have to deal with.




What kind of tactics? Avoid anything "hard-hitting" so you don't have to relly on healing? 

I'm sure of something though...when one of the PCs is a cleric, I design more brutal encounters and when they got no active healer, combats are softer and shorter.


----------



## Steely Dan (Apr 21, 2008)

Ghaerdon Fain said:
			
		

> After listening to Andy Collins on The Tome ep 52, it seems that we might be waiting a while before multi-classing makes an appearance.  The 4E team just doesn't want to have a swiss army knife character. So I doubt it will be in.




I believe they have stated multi-classing _will _ be in 4th Ed from the start.

I heard there will be a table for true multi-classing, and ways to get powers from other classes via Feat Training.


----------



## Steely Dan (Apr 21, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Honestly, to me, a cleric will always be someone who gained spellcasting at second level.





And for me, the ranger will always be someone who started with 2 HD at first level (and the monk)!


----------



## MaelStorm (Apr 21, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> /snip
> and telling us about how the Warlord is in because the party needs more leader options just points out some of that 4e schizophrenia -- "Roles need options, so the Warlord is in! Iconicness takes precedence over options, so Controller II is out!"
> 
> Ah?



If you listen the podcast again, the main reason why Controller II is out is because they wanted the new edition to introduce a brand new class: that's why we have the Warlord in PH I. The other reason is a smokescreen, because if true, they would have given us two controller classes?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 21, 2008)

> What kind of tactics? Avoid anything "hard-hitting" so you don't have to relly on healing?




Yeah, there's that. There's the idea of "play defensively," ratcheting up your AC and CON score, using classes like the Paladin and Monk and Bard and Druid that help survivability, getting better armor before you get better weapons, using the "fight defensively" rules, and Combat Expertise, launching your Barbarian Rage only when you are seriously wounded....



> If you listen the podcast again, the main reason why Controller II is out is because they wanted the new edition to introduce a brand new class: that's why we have the Warlord in PH I.




Well, even if there was a finite number of "class slots," you'd have to compare the Controller II against ALL the existing classes, not just the Warlord.

Controller II over a warlock?
Over a ranger?
Over the paladin?

Still, the point remains that they didn't solve any problem of "requiring" a certain class. I'm basically okay with that, but I wish they wouldn't be claiming to be fixing something that they really didn't fix.


----------



## lutecius (Apr 21, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> I don't believe it. You need TWF to play Taki.



yeah, like the b  would need that, on top of her +40 speed bonus and her broken per encounter "Ninja Canon Fury" (that's sooo 4e). 
Balance-wise, she is not a rogue, she's a 3eCOD. hopefully they'll solve that in 4e.


----------



## brehobit (Apr 21, 2008)

*No cleric in 3e*

The game I'm running lacks anyone capable of throwing a healing spell.  Level 3 and we have 2 wizards, 1 ranger, 1 fighter, and an NPC rogue. Ranger has been burning through a wand of CLW for out-of-combat healing.  And nearly no healing happens in combat (a couple of potions thus far).

It seems pretty survivable if the DM makes wands of CLW buyable.    

Mark


----------



## MaelStorm (Apr 21, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Well, even if there was a finite number of "class slots," you'd have to compare the Controller II against ALL the existing classes, not just the Warlord.
> 
> Controller II over a warlock?
> Over a ranger?
> ...



Over a Warlock I think, which is another new class if we compare 3E PH I with 4E PH I.


----------



## hong (Apr 21, 2008)

lutecius said:
			
		

> yeah, like the b  would need that, on top of her +40 speed bonus and her broken per encounter "Ninja Canon Fury" (that's sooo 4e).
> Balance-wise, she is not a rogue, she's a 3eCOD. hopefully they'll solve that in 4e.



 Eh, Rocket-Propelled Ninja ATTACK! is not per-encounter, it's at will!


----------



## LostInTheMists (Apr 21, 2008)

*Lead the Attack ambiguity...*

So far, I like what I'm seeing with the Warlord, but one of my personal pet peeves has reared its ugly head again... wording ambiguity.  On the Tactical Warlord's daily power, "Lead the Attack", it reads like this:

*Lead the Attack Warlord Attack 1*_
Under your direction, arrows hit their marks and blades drive home._

*Daily - Martial, Weapon*
*Standard Action Melee* - weapon
*Target:* One creature
*Attack:* Strength vs. AC

*Hit:* 3[W] + Strength modifier damage. *Until the end of the encounter, you and each ally within 5 squares of you * gain a power bonus to attack rolls against the target equal to 1 + your Intelligence modifier.

*Miss:* *Until the end of the encounter, you and each ally within 5 squares of you * gain a +1 power bonus to attack rolls against the target.

The emphasis in the Hit and Miss entries is mine.  Does this mean:

 Any ally who is standing within 5 squares of the warlord at the time this power is used gains the bonus until the end of the encounter, regardless of where they move to afterward (for example, an eladrin ranger standing near the warlord gets the bonus, then _fey steps _ across the room to get a better archery position on the target)?

 After this power is used, any ally that makes an attack while standing within 5 squares of the warlord gets the bonus until the end of the encounter, regardless of where they were when the power was actually utilized (for example, an eladrin ranger who was engaging other enemies sees the warlord across the room use this power on a black dragon, so he _fey steps_ nearby to aid in the fight, gaining this bonus since he's now within 5 squares of the warlord)?

 Something else?


----------



## Ximenes088 (Apr 21, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Still, the point remains that they didn't solve any problem of "requiring" a certain class. I'm basically okay with that, but I wish they wouldn't be claiming to be fixing something that they really didn't fix.



I'd suggest that it's distinctly premature to declare that they're wrong. We've got some people here claiming that clerics aren't required in 3e, and that game's been out eight years. We're now supposed to speak with certainty about required classes for a game that's not even out yet?

WotC's said that no single role is indispensible, albeit some are more important than others. A party without a Leader is demonstrably not as healing-incapable as a 3e party, barring priest-in-a-stick wand usage. A party without a Controller is not missing huge chunks of utility and save-or-die effects, as they'd miss in 3e. It may be that these roles turn out to be mandatory after all, but I think it'll be a lot more arguable in 4e than it is in 3e.


----------



## small pumpkin man (Apr 21, 2008)

med stud said:
			
		

> I think clerics will have their builds defined by what god they worship. Sort of like warlocks and their pacts.



I'm fairly certain that won't be the case, one of the Podcasts mentioned that they wanted to tone down that kind of stuff as much as possible, to allow a character to play a Cleric of a homebrew God/Pantheon without having to change any crunch at all.


			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> A cleric in 3e was helpful, and added nice oomph, but it wasn't necessary. A PC party could easily get by without one, they'd just lack certain combat oomph and would have to use different tactics -- exactly the same thing Andy Collins said that a 4e party without a wizard would have to deal with.



I've found that after a certain level, the various buffs and "get out of jail free cards" Clerics gain increases the survivability of the party by an extreme amount that they become the most detrimental Class to not have. The healing is nice, but it's not the main point.


			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Any problem that there was about this in 3e is not solved in 4e, and telling us about how the Warlord is in because the party needs more leader options just points out some of that 4e schizophrenia -- "Roles need options, so the Warlord is in! Iconicness takes precedence over options, so Controller II is out!"
> 
> Ah?



I also found it annoying, although I wouldn't consider it "schizophrenia" so much as just different designers having different perspectives, the idea that companies or design teams are some sort of monolithic hive mind is not one I subscribe to. Unless it was the same designer who said both, then it would be both weird and irritating.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Apr 21, 2008)

LostInTheMists said:
			
		

> After this power is used, any ally that makes an attack while standing within 5 squares of the warlord gets the bonus until the end of the encounter, regardless of where they were when the power was actually utilized (for example, an eladrin ranger who was engaging other enemies sees the warlord across the room use this power on a black dragon, so he _fey steps_ nearby to aid in the fight, gaining this bonus since he's now within 5 squares of the warlord)?




Unless there are instructions to the contrary, I anticipate using option  from your list - for the remainder of the encounter those who are within 25ft of the warlord get the bonus.

Cheers


----------



## Protagonist (Apr 21, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> I don't believe it. You need TWF to play Taki.




+ you need the DDI Boob Enhancer


----------



## theredrobedwizard (Apr 21, 2008)

Jack99 said:
			
		

> Get on your feet, you *[censored due to the grandmother clause]*, or so help me Bane I will swab the deck with your worthless face!




I love the previews so far. Glee!

-TRRW


----------



## Ian O'Rourke (Apr 21, 2008)

LostInTheMists said:
			
		

> *Hit:* 3[W] + Strength modifier damage. *Until the end of the encounter, you and each ally within 5 squares of you * gain a power bonus to attack rolls against the target equal to 1 + your Intelligence modifier.
> 
> *Miss:* *Until the end of the encounter, you and each ally within 5 squares of you * gain a +1 power bonus to attack rolls against the target.[/COLOR]




For those thinking about how this rule is actually applied, I too it to mean:-

Once the power is used anyone standing within 5 squares of the Warlord gets either a 1+Int Mod bonus or a +1 bonus (depending on a hit or a miss) for the whole of the encounter if they are standing in that 5 square range. As long as the power has been used you will get that bonus if you are in the 5 square range. If you're not accurately tracking squares - go with a general feel of whatever that means in feet/ meter 

Still, I'm sure other people think differently.


----------



## Dausuul (Apr 21, 2008)

LostInTheMists said:
			
		

> The emphasis in the Hit and Miss entries is mine.  Does this mean:
> 
> Any ally who is standing within 5 squares of the warlord at the time this power is used gains the bonus until the end of the encounter, regardless of where they move to afterward (for example, an eladrin ranger standing near the warlord gets the bonus, then _fey steps _ across the room to get a better archery position on the target)?
> 
> ...




I intend to go with option 3, which is:

 This power affects all allies regardless of location, because I see no reason to bother tracking stuff like this.  I'm not sure what the gain of tracking it would be, but I very much doubt it outweighs the cost of counting off squares to see if you're close enough to the warlord.  If it were 1 or 2 squares, that would be different, but 5 squares is a big enough radius that it might as well just say "the entire battlefield" and leave it at that.

(If I had to pick one of the original two options, I'd take  just because it's easier.)


----------



## Carnivorous_Bean (Apr 21, 2008)

Ugh .... words cannot describe how detestable the name "warlord" is for this class. Unfortunately, it tends to color my perceptions of what is otherwise a fairly decent class, from the looks of it.

I wish that the WotC staff writers wouldn't parade their rather dubious grasp of the English language quite so publicly, either. They claim that renaming the 'marshal' as the 'warlord' broadens the meaning, when in fact, assuming that they're using the same English language as everyone else, it's evident that it's narrowing the meaning to the point of absurdity. 

Let's get some perspective here by using a dictionary (specifically, the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th edition, published in 2006 by Houghton-Mifflin, and therefore presumably readily available to people who are getting paid to write):

*Warlord* n.   A military commander exercising civil power in a region, whether in nominal allegiance to the national government or in defiance of it.  

Marshal isn't perfect either, but at least it's far closer to what they're saying this so-called "warlord" is (especially definition 4):

*Marshal* 

n.   

1.  a. A military officer of the highest rank in some countries. 
     b. A field marshal. 
     c. A U.S. federal officer of a judicial district who carries out court orders and discharges  duties similar to those of a sheriff. 
     d. A city law enforcement officer in the United States who carries out court orders. 
The head of a police or fire department in the United States. 

2.  a. A U.S. federal officer of a judicial district who carries out court orders and discharges duties similar to those of a sheriff. 
     b. A city law enforcement officer in the United States who carries out court orders. 
     c. The head of a police or fire department in the United States. 
3.   A person in charge of a parade or ceremony. 
4.   A high official in a royal court, especially one aiding the sovereign in military affairs.

I really, really do wish that they'd look in a dictionary before making statements and choosing names like this. Honestly, this is as ludicrous an error as the old Dragon magazine gaffe where one of their writers used "toothsome" to mean "having many teeth" -- "they were attacked by a pack of large, toothsome canines" .... well, it's a relief to hear that those dogs were tasty, anyway!


----------



## Steely Dan (Apr 21, 2008)

As my wife is Kenyan, you know what we think of when we see the word warlord…


----------



## Cadfan (Apr 21, 2008)

Dausuul said:
			
		

> I intend to go with option 3, which is:
> 
> This power affects all allies regardless of location, because I see no reason to bother tracking stuff like this.  I'm not sure what the gain of tracking it would be, but I very much doubt it outweighs the cost of counting off squares to see if you're close enough to the warlord.  If it were 1 or 2 squares, that would be different, but 5 squares is a big enough radius that it might as well just say "the entire battlefield" and leave it at that.



Myself, I've always used "the entire scene" as my test.  When Aragorn and Gimli jumped onto the bridge to fight all those orcs at the gate of Helm's Deep, that was one scene.  If Aragorn used a power with a radius of effect, Gimli would be within it even if he was 30 feet away.  But an NPC elf archer 25 feet above them shooting arrows at an entirely separate part of the battlefield would not be affected, as he is not part of the scene.


----------



## eleran (Apr 21, 2008)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> Skill List: First thing I noticed is a small list of skills. They choose 4 out of a list of 6. Then again, that could just be for the initial selection, skill training doesn't seem to require a skill be on your class list (see stealth for the wizard).




I don't remember anyone else climbing out on this limb, so I am gonna claim to be the first.  I am betting that everyone will get to choose a number of skills from the non-class list equal to their int bonus.   I just can't see a 1st level warlord with only 4 trained skills.  This may help to keep INT from being a total dump stat for some classes.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 21, 2008)

WOW, we managed to go FIVE pages before someone had to complain about the name of the class.  That's gotta be a record.

Besides that... Um what?  What if my warlord is openly opposing the king?  Marshall no longer applies at all, particularly #4.

How does:



			
				WOTC said:
			
		

> The answer is that we wanted to broaden the concept from a medieval military commander to someone who might be a barbaric warchief, an elven marchwarden, or a noble-born knight-commander.




Not equate pretty darn well with:



> A military commander exercising civil power in a region, whether in nominal allegiance to the national government or in defiance of it.




Let's see, barbarian warchief... check... military commander.... check... march warden... no problem... noble born... fits...

Where's the problem?


----------



## Mad Mac (Apr 21, 2008)

> I wish that the WotC staff writers wouldn't parade their rather dubious grasp of the English language quite so publicly, either. They claim that renaming the 'marshal' as the 'warlord' broadens the meaning, when in fact, assuming that they're using the same English language as everyone else, it's evident that it's narrowing the meaning to the point of absurdity.




  I'm not understanding your point. The dictionary entry shows that Marshall is a formal rank with various military and civilian meanings. Marshall means a paticular type of military officer, police officer, or parade officer, basically. It's very narrow in it's own way, and it suggests the PC works for someone directly. 

  Warlord can refer to anyone who excercises military power, be it a Noble pacifiying a region on behalf of their liege, the leader of a Hobgoblin Warband, a rogue mercenary captain, or even a Bandit King. I'll admit it's a somewhat fanciful name for PC's, who presumably don't actually command an army, but Warlord still comes across as less limiting to me personally than Marshall.


----------



## Riley (Apr 21, 2008)

Green Knight said:
			
		

> Shaman, huh? Primal Leader, I take it?




This does seem to confirm that we will see a shaman who is a Primal Leader.

So I guess the PHB2 will contain:
Shaman - Primal Leader
Barbarian - Primal Defender
Druid - Primal Striker (hybrid)
Sorcerer - Primal Controller (possibly hybrid)

Bard - Arcane Leader

...and Psionics, if they can squeeze it in, they say (although the 2009 release of Eberron suggests they really should try hard to find a way to do so).


----------



## Carnivorous_Bean (Apr 21, 2008)

Mad Mac said:
			
		

> I'm not understanding your point. The dictionary entry shows that Marshall is a formal rank with various military and civilian meanings. Marshall means a paticular type of military officer, police officer, or parade officer, basically. It's very narrow in it's own way, and it suggests the PC works for someone directly.
> 
> Warlord can refer to anyone who excercises military power, be it a Noble pacifiying a region on behalf of their liege, the leader of a Hobgoblin Warband, a rogue mercenary captain, or even a Bandit King. I'll admit it's a somewhat fanciful name for PC's, who presumably don't actually command an army, but Warlord still comes across as less limiting to me personally than Marshall.




How many sergeants, lieutenants, captains, or majors have you heard being described as a "warlord"? Do you mean to tell me that our army contains thousands upon thousands of warlords?

My point still stands. It's like a doctor calling the muscle in your calf a "bicep" -- yes, it refers to a muscle, but it's the wrong muscle.  And in English, warlord has ONE WELL-DEFINED MEANING, and ONLY ONE MEANING: "Military dictator of a region or district."  So, yes, the writers are objectively *wrong* to replace a word that actually means what they're describing with a word that means something totally different.

At the very least, it illustrates that they don't have a dictionary on hand. Which is odd for someone who's being paid to write.


----------



## Steely Dan (Apr 21, 2008)

Riley said:
			
		

> So I guess the PHB2 will contain:
> Shaman - Primal Leader
> Barbarian - Primal Defender
> Druid - Primal Striker (hybrid)
> ...




And what about Shadow!

Necromancer – Shadow Leader
Illusionist – Shadow Controller


----------



## Stalker0 (Apr 21, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> I don't believe it. You need TWF to play Taki.




Whatever, Taki is totally a warlord. Every time I see her fight I get....inspired


----------



## webrunner (Apr 21, 2008)

They didn't mention it, but they probably also wanted to avoid having a "martial" "marshal" thing when playing a game spoken over a table.


----------



## Pssthpok (Apr 21, 2008)

nm...


----------



## Riley (Apr 21, 2008)

Steely Dan said:
			
		

> And what about Shadow!
> 
> Necromancer – Shadow Leader
> Illusionist – Shadow Controller




I'm guessing 2010.  Which seems an awfully long time to wait.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 21, 2008)

Carnivorous_Bean said:
			
		

> How many sergeants, lieutenants, captains, or majors have you heard being described as a "warlord"? Do you mean to tell me that our army contains thousands upon thousands of warlords?
> 
> My point still stands. It's like a doctor calling the muscle in your calf a "bicep" -- yes, it refers to a muscle, but it's the wrong muscle.  And in English, warlord has ONE WELL-DEFINED MEANING, and ONLY ONE MEANING: "Military dictator of a region or district."  So, yes, the writers are objectively *wrong* to replace a word that actually means what they're describing with a word that means something totally different.
> 
> At the very least, it illustrates that they don't have a dictionary on hand. Which is odd for someone who's being paid to write.




Your own definition disagrees with you.  All of the sample archetypes they put up actually fit your definition of warlord - someone who commands an area either in support or defiance of the government.  

Show me a fantasy campaign where you have all those military ranks and I'll show you one seriously anachronistic game.

I would point you Here as well:



> Warlordism in Europe is usually connected to various mercenary companies and their chieftains, which often were de facto powerholders in the areas in which they resided. Such free companies would arise in a situation when the recognized central power had collapsed, such as in the Great Interregnum in Germany (1254-1278) or in France during the Hundred Years' War after the Battle of Poitiers.
> 
> Free company mercenary captains, such as Sir John Hawkwood, Roger de Flor of Catalan Company or Hugh Calveley could be considered as warlords. Several condottieri in Italy can also be classified as warlords.
> 
> ...





Hrm, mercenary captain.  Gee, how would you ever link that to a D&D group?


----------



## Stalker0 (Apr 21, 2008)

webrunner said:
			
		

> They didn't mention it, but they probably also wanted to avoid having a "martial" "marshal" thing when playing a game spoken over a table.




Yet now you have the warlock/warlord problem. In my last playtest, I accidentally called the warlock a warlord twice, and there wasn't even a warlord in the game.


----------



## Mad Mac (Apr 21, 2008)

> How many sergeants, lieutenants, captains, or majors have you heard being described as a "warlord"? Do you mean to tell me that our army contains thousands upon thousands of warlords?




  We're talking about a fantasy game here, not a modern army. Noble-born Knight-commanders, Tribal Cheiftans,  Elven Marchwardens and Mercenary Captains who are _in nominal allegiance to the national government or in defiance of it,_ are a better fit for fantasy games and feudal systems than structured, professional armies. 

  Besides, Marshall isn't really an improvement on that score. How many Sergeants, Lieutenants, Captains, Majors, Generals, Admirals, Knights, Grenadiers, Barbarian Cheiftans, Mercenary Captains and Bandit leaders have your heard being described as "Marshalls"? 



> And in English, warlord has ONE WELL-DEFINED MEANING, and ONLY ONE MEANING: "Military dictator of a region or district."




  This is somewhat at odds with your posted dictionary definition.


----------



## Baka no Hentai (Apr 21, 2008)

webrunner said:
			
		

> They didn't mention it, but they probably also wanted to avoid having a "martial" "marshal" thing when playing a game spoken over a table.




Although now Jan Brady's "Martial Marshal Marsha!" line actually makes sense.

That Brady Bunch... I always knew they were ahead of their time...


----------



## WyzardWhately (Apr 21, 2008)

eleran said:
			
		

> I don't remember anyone else climbing out on this limb, so I am gonna claim to be the first.  I am betting that everyone will get to choose a number of skills from the non-class list equal to their int bonus.   I just can't see a 1st level warlord with only 4 trained skills.  This may help to keep INT from being a total dump stat for some classes.




The sample characters would seem to falsify that idea.  Sadly, IMHO, because I don't see INT doing as much as I'd like it to.


----------



## Lacyon (Apr 21, 2008)

Mad Mac said:
			
		

> We're talking about a fantasy game here, not a modern army. Noble-born Knight-commanders, Tribal Cheiftans,  Elven Marchwardens and Mercenary Captains who are _in nominal allegiance to the national government or in defiance of it,_ are a better fit for fantasy games and feudal systems than structured, professional armies.




The phrase in the warlord definition that causes problems "exercising civil power". Most mercenary captains, marchwardens, and knight-commanders don't do this.

Of course, this isn't a problem if you keep searching for other definitions. For example, at dictionary.com:

1. a military leader, esp. of a warlike nation.  

or, further down:

warlord noun 
a very powerful military leader

Both of which fit the concept of 'martial leader' role pretty well.


----------



## Ulthwithian (Apr 21, 2008)

I'm pretty sure that CarnivorousBean is speaking of the term 'warlord' from a historical perspective.  In my studies of Chinese history, the early 1900s are generally referred to as the 'Age of Warlords' or 'Warlordism'.  There is a definite _connotation_ to the word when used in historical or political circles that gives it a very unsavory edge.  'Warlords', in that context, are the military equivalent of late 1800s American 'capitalists' (i.e., robber barons, by and large).

However.

The term Warlord is an easy word to break down.  It is someone who is either 1) A Lord of War, or 2) A Lord by War.  4E Warlords are pretty clearly the first example, while CarnivorousBean is using the second example; i.e., a tyrant, in the purest sense of the term.

The alternative was 'Marshal'.  That is, 'One who Marshals (an army)'.  WotC apparently did not take this since there is a clearly defined if rather unused Military Rank, the Field Marshal, that might imply more than WotC cared to imply with the term.

Neither are perfect (personally, I would have preferred something akin to Warmaster).  Both imply a scale beyond that normally encountered in an RPG, for example.  However, both directly convey the important aspect of the class.

I wouldn't have minded if the class was called the Marshal, but I feel Warlord is more evocative.  Unfortunately, exactly what that word evokes for some people may not be to their taste.


----------



## Steely Dan (Apr 21, 2008)

Riley said:
			
		

> I'm guessing 2010.




But I want an oompa loompa now!


----------



## Sir Brennen (Apr 21, 2008)

Ulthwithian said:
			
		

> Neither are perfect (personally, I would have preferred something akin to *Warmaster*).



Except the first thing my brain did was flip that around to read "Warhamster".

C'mon. It's not just me, is it?


----------



## Steely Dan (Apr 21, 2008)

I say we change the name of the class to Mugabe!


----------



## Stormtalon (Apr 21, 2008)

Then again, when I think of the word Warlord, what immediately pops into mind is this:









*edit -- 'cause I'm an idiot at linking images*


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 21, 2008)

> It may be that these roles turn out to be mandatory after all, but I think it'll be a lot more arguable in 4e than it is in 3e.




By all appearances, you will no more need a wizard in your party in 4e than you needed a cleric in your party in 3e. You'll just need to use "different tactics," which is exactly what a cleric-less party in 3e needed to do. 

However, you would find that a cleric would be the BEST, and that the other classes wouldn't be quite as good, and this means that for the more swingy monsters (which, at high levels, got to be basically every monster), the need for very solid tactics would be more dramatic. So you got the impression that you "needed" a cleric, despite not REALLY needing a cleric.

You can probably cope without a wizard, too, but it seems like you'll be missing out on the BEST area-effect abilities, which can certainly make a difference in, say, a combat full of minions, or one with a highly mobile enemy. 



> I also found it annoying, although I wouldn't consider it "schizophrenia" so much as just different designers having different perspectives, the idea that companies or design teams are some sort of monolithic hive mind is not one I subscribe to.




Some schizophrenia is good, but too much means that I don't know how to tinker with the game. Is a game without a second controller working As Intended? What would a different controller look like? Can I ban wizards without making my party feel weaker? Etc.?


----------



## hong (Apr 21, 2008)

Stormtalon said:
			
		

> Then again, when I think of the word Warlord, what immediately pops into mind is this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 I'll have you know that "grell warlord" inspired DOZENS of vivid images, none of which were satisfied by the actual picture.


----------



## Ulthwithian (Apr 21, 2008)

Oh, yes, the whole 'where's the other controller' issue.  I too share it; I don't understand why WotC injured the parallel nature of the game in this manner.  I imagine it was due to market research; too many people like playing Rogues and Rangers to axe one (even at the beginning) in favor of another controller.  I would hazard a guess that by the same market research, they figured that they could most easily 'skimp' on a Controller, since the Wizard is much 'more' iconic than a Cleric, especially from a 'wanna play' perspective.


----------



## Remathilis (Apr 21, 2008)

My personal theory: there was to be a 9th class, but space constraints kicked it down the pipe.


----------



## med stud (Apr 21, 2008)

1) If we accept _barbarian_ as a class name, I can't see why we couldn't accept warlord.

2) According to the defenition, the warlord is someone who is "a military commander exercising civil power in a region". It doesn't say _how much_ civil power that someone exercises. A level 1 warlord will be a leader of men. In certain settings (like Sweden in the 1000 ADs), 20 armed men under your command gave you a substantial power.

3) When I hear the word "marshal" I get the image of a Texas highway patrolman, and I'm not even American. The other image I get is the supreme leader of all armed forces. The term "marshal", at least in Swedish history, is the second in command to the king. I think that's much worse.

To get past the dictionary- game, I also think that the term marshal is very anachronistic. You have a paladin, a wizard, a rogue and a... marshal? It sounds silly to me, and I yet again get the picture of a US official.


----------



## Stormtalon (Apr 21, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> I'll have you know that "grell warlord" inspired DOZENS of vivid images, none of which were satisfied by the actual picture.




Yeah, but not a single one of those images would pass the Eric's Grandma test, now would they?


----------



## Protagonist (Apr 21, 2008)

Edit: ninja'd mself


----------



## Protagonist (Apr 21, 2008)

med stud said:
			
		

> 1) If we accept _barbarian_ as a class name, I can't see why we couldn't accept warlord.
> 
> 2) According to the defenition, the warlord is someone who is "a military commander exercising civil power in a region". It doesn't say _how much_ civil power that someone exercises. A level 1 warlord will be a leader of men. In certain settings (like Sweden in the 1000 ADs), 20 armed men under your command gave you a substantial power.
> 
> ...




What he said. Especially #3, which might be an European /Non-American thing, but seems valid nonetheless.


----------



## Daniel D. Fox (Apr 21, 2008)

I cannot believe people are still upset over the class name. If you don't like it, _houserule it._ Rule 0, folks!


----------



## Bishmon (Apr 21, 2008)

Dausuul said:
			
		

> I intend to go with option 3, which is:
> 
> This power affects all allies regardless of location, because I see no reason to bother tracking stuff like this.  I'm not sure what the gain of tracking it would be, but I very much doubt it outweighs the cost of counting off squares to see if you're close enough to the warlord.  If it were 1 or 2 squares, that would be different, but 5 squares is a big enough radius that it might as well just say "the entire battlefield" and leave it at that.



Absolutely agreed. Same thing with the bonus to initiative provided by Combat Leader. Everyone just adds the +2 to their character sheets and we're done with dealing with that ability. Easy enough.


----------



## eleran (Apr 21, 2008)

WyzardWhately said:
			
		

> The sample characters would seem to falsify that idea.  Sadly, IMHO, because I don't see INT doing as much as I'd like it to.





Man, couldn't I even get a full day to revel in my idea?  LOL   You're right of course.  Unless....maybe the pregens don't reflect the current final PH classes?  maybe?  A boy can dream....


----------



## Protagonist (Apr 21, 2008)

Indeed, houseruling names is something most people who are not gaming in English have done for years anyway. The German translations for warlock (Hexer) and sorcerer (Hexenmeister) are annoyingly similar (with Hexenmeister  essentially meaning "master warlock") and most people I know also substitute fighter (Kämpfer) with warrior (Krieger), probably because Kämpfer (not unlike fighter I guess) more generic (and less archaic) compared to Krieger.


----------



## AllisterH (Apr 21, 2008)

You know, I thought I was the only one that thinks "Grell's Warlord" when I hear the term warlord.

re: Necessity of the Cleric in previous editions
I think we might be defining it too tightly. What I always saw was that you needed SOME form of healing, be it the somewhat not-really-a-healer-rogue with the CLW, or the favoured soul or the cleric, someone in the party HAD to have access to healing.

My understanding of 4E is that thanks to the Second wind mechanic and the 5 min rest, regain healing, that a party that consists of a Rogue (with no healing wands), Fighter, Wizard is a valid party choice whereas such a choice in previous editions was simply not possible.

Basically, no one role is needed to complete an adventure is what 4E is aiming for (and until we get our hands on the books, we don't know how close WOTC has achieved this goal). 

Thus, if the standard D&D party consists of a Leader (cleric), Striker (Rogue), Controller (Wizard), Defender (Fighter) I could take say a 10th level adventure and use it as is if the party consisted of say 2 Strikers (Rogue & Warlock), and 2 Defenders (Fighter and Paladin) and not have the party simply be stumped.

I imagine that the above "unbalanced" party will have to compensate for tactics but their basic class abilities should allow them enough flexibility to handle the same challenges as the standard party.

Again, until I see it in my hands and run a few adventures, I'm neutral to how effective this really would be.

(For example, in 3.x, I could run any 5th level adventure or higher without modification for a party consisting of only clerics and or druids and by 10th, the same could be said if I added a party consisting of just wizards/sorcerors. However, I would consider it cruel and unbecoming for a DM to run a 7th level adventure or higher *AS IS * if the party had neither an arcane or divine class.


----------



## Pazu (Apr 21, 2008)

lutecius said:
			
		

> Balance-wise, she is not a rogue, she's a 3eCOD.




A 3eCOD?  Don't you mean a 38DDD?


----------



## Thyrwyn (Apr 21, 2008)

Pazu said:
			
		

> 38DDD?



You can call that a lot of things, but "balanced" that isn't


----------



## lutecius (Apr 21, 2008)

Before the debate over interpretation issues and mechanical implications really starts, I just had to say...
BLAH! Bring the bard back, and without the otherworldly patron shtuff, please.

This excerpt reinforces my opinion that the whole class wasn’t needed.
That "hit = random bonus for allies" routine...

 doesn’t make sense half of the time.

 may be a good way to buff others without having to take a back seat in combat, but as the class’ main shtick, it gets tired quickly, just like the marshall's auras.

 would make good powers for the fighter or better yet, let’s see … 
- an inspiring champion whose title doesn't imply an army of followers?
- one who did not need divine magic to inspire people in legend?
- one who never had a clearly defined role besides being a charismatic fighter/cleric hybrid?
To me it’s pronounced PAL-uh-din.

(see? I got to use those die-smileys)



			
				Jack99 said:
			
		

> What a wuss warlord. Sounds like a cleric. My warlord will be more like this:
> 
> Get on your feet, you *[censored due to the grandmother clause]*, or I will be having fun with your pretty little wife tonight!



Warlords like yours are bound to get caught in "friendly fireball" ('oops I forgot! I didn’t take that golden wyvern adept power...hated the name...my bad')
Obnoxious characters might provide great roleplaying opportunities and all but in my experience, they tend to do funny things to team spirit


----------



## Moon_Goddess (Apr 21, 2008)

med stud said:
			
		

> 3) When I hear the word "marshal" I get the image of a Texas highway patrolman, and I'm not even American.





Actually, that's ranger,   Texas Highway patrol are called the Texas Rangers.   But we've managed to always deal with that one.


----------



## drjones (Apr 21, 2008)

The reason Wizards are the only controller in the first PHB?  Because the Sorcerer was not 'done' probably because it's whole reason for being (the wizard to knows less spells but gets to use them more often) has been obliterated by the changes to resource management so he needs a whole new trick.  Whatever they came up with was not good enough and no other iconic controllers were popular enough.

But are a lot of groups really going to be complaining that they HAVE to have a wizard?  My guys fight over who gets to play the wiz.  Cleric, not so much.


But to the warlord healing mechanic I am reminded of Lord of the Rings Online which is imo the only current mmo worth playing for more than half an hour and names it's hit points 'morale' as in middle earth there is no rationalization for people coming back from the dead (unless they happen to be angels) and magical healing is very limited.  So instead of getting killed you are 'defeated' and healing is done by 'inspiring hope' and the like.  It is all basically hand waving but if you are looking for a rationalization for warlord healing it fits.


----------



## lutecius (Apr 21, 2008)

Pazu said:
			
		

> A 3eCOD?  Don't you mean a 38DDD?



that too. if they get any bigger, Ivy will need a wheel barrow by 5e.


----------



## theredrobedwizard (Apr 21, 2008)

Until the end of the encounter: whenever an ally is within 5 squares of you, they get a +X power bonus to attack rolls.

It's an aura, basically.  Works like the old Marshal "Motivate Attack" thing.  

IF "Leading the Attack" has been used AND You are currently within 5 squares of the Warlord.
THEN Gain a +X power bonus on attack rolls.
ELSE No bonus.

If the Warlord activates Leading the Attack and you move more than five squares away, you lose the bonus.  If you later (during the same encounter) move into the radius again (or for the first time) you gain the bonus.

-TRRW


----------



## Jack99 (Apr 21, 2008)

lutecius said:
			
		

> Warlords like yours are bound to get caught in "friendly fireball" ('oops I forgot! I didn’t take that golden wyvern adept power...hated the name...my bad')
> Obnoxious characters might provide great roleplaying opportunities and all but in my experience, they tend to do funny things to team spirit




I am the DM, so my NPC's have an easier time being "slightly" obnoxious...   

Even if a player is like that, it's never an issue that transcends the game, ie, the other characters (players) merely sees it as role-playing, and play along. The type that turns off our group, is the annoying halfling that runs around thinking he is a gnome (prankster roguish type). Those characters (and their players) often attract friendly fire, for some reason.


----------



## Kwalish Kid (Apr 21, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> I'll have you know that "grell warlord" inspired DOZENS of vivid images, none of which were satisfied by the actual picture.



Really?

http://images.google.ca/images?q="grell+warlord


----------



## bramadan (Apr 21, 2008)

My only objection to Warlord name is that it implies great power and expertise. It is as if wizard class was renamed Archmage. I think the class should have been called "Captain" or "Commander" with "Warlord" being saved for a paragon path.


----------



## Mercule (Apr 21, 2008)

DarwinofMind said:
			
		

> Actually, that's ranger,   Texas Highway patrol are called the Texas Rangers.   But we've managed to always deal with that one.



Indeed.  Marshals are responsible for finding fugitives, witness protection, following up on judicial papers (serving them, etc.), and things of that nature.  They don't usually go in for the "detective" work, by my understanding.  More info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Marshals_Service


----------



## Quickleaf (Apr 21, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> You can probably cope without a wizard, too, but it seems like you'll be missing out on the BEST area-effect abilities, which can certainly make a difference in, say, a combat full of minions, or one with a highly mobile enemy.



I came to the same conclusion about controllers - as long as they are highly effective against swarms of minions and mobile foes, they don't need to top the wizard's AoE powers.



> Some schizophrenia is good, but too much means that I don't know how to tinker with the game. Is a game without a second controller working As Intended? What would a different controller look like? Can I ban wizards without making my party feel weaker? Etc.?



I agree, a second controller should be in the PHB, especially given that the warlord class explicitly reveals HP can be increased through the warlord's inspiration powers. Thus, it stands to reason that a martial controller might demoralize the enemy and reduce their HP.


----------



## FadedC (Apr 21, 2008)

bramadan said:
			
		

> My only objection to Warlord name is that it implies great power and expertise. It is as if wizard class was renamed Archmage. I think the class should have been called "Captain" or "Commander" with "Warlord" being saved for a paragon path.




Ironically I've always thought the name wizard implied great power and expertise, and that first level characters who could only throw magic missiles twice a day shouldn't be called wizards. But I got used to it. Warlord on the other hand sounds to me like somebody less impressive then a commander....like some local leader of a bunch of armed men.

Anyway it's funny how different names mean different things to different people. My impressions of wizard are probably colored by a number of other games (including 1e) where you only got the title of wizard when you had become really powerful. Your perception of warlord could easily be flavored by something like that too (for example in WOW it's the highest military rank in the horde).


----------



## Zaruthustran (Apr 21, 2008)

Quickleaf said:
			
		

> I agree, a second controller should be in the PHB, especially given that the warlord class explicitly reveals HP can be increased through the warlord's inspiration powers. Thus, it stands to reason that a martial controller might demoralize the enemy and reduce their HP.




I imagine a barbarian would fit the martial controller role. Close burst shouts that demoralize the enemy (reduce hp directly, or debuff), blade-whirling charges that damage and knock back groups of foes, feral stances that make the surrounding squares count as difficult terrain, barrages of arrows or thrown weapons that do ranged AoE damage, wide clears with a long two-handed weapon that do close blast weapon AoE, and gruesome finishing moves ("with a savage cry you cleave your foe's head from his shoulders, showering his comrades in gore") that work as close blast fear AoE effects.


----------



## Dausuul (Apr 21, 2008)

bramadan said:
			
		

> My only objection to Warlord name is that it implies great power and expertise. It is as if wizard class was renamed Archmage. I think the class should have been called "Captain" or "Commander" with "Warlord" being saved for a paragon path.




I'd be inclined to use "Leader," myself.  Or, being that it's WotC, "Warleader."  Use something else to describe the role.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 21, 2008)

> I agree, a second controller should be in the PHB, especially given that the warlord class explicitly reveals HP can be increased through the warlord's inspiration powers. Thus, it stands to reason that a martial controller might demoralize the enemy and reduce their HP.




Personally, I was thinking that a 'nature priest' style druid, without much combat-based wild shape, but with the ability to summon swarms, cause plants and the ground to move about, and control localized weather effects (rain, snow, temperature) would have fit a Divine Controller role quite nicely. I wouldn't mind it in the slightest if it replaced the Ranger (because it's not that iconic, and it's another martial striker).


----------



## LostInTheMists (Apr 21, 2008)

theredrobedwizard said:
			
		

> IF "Leading the Attack" has been used AND You are currently within 5 squares of the Warlord.
> THEN Gain a +X power bonus on attack rolls.
> ELSE No bonus.
> 
> -TRRW




5 Print "Thanks, theredrobedwizard!"
10 Goto 5
20 End

Seriously, that cleared it up nicely for me, but I'm a computer guy.  I understood that better than English.


----------



## Chimera (Apr 21, 2008)

All these silly arguments over the name "warlord".

Here I'm more interested in knowing if a female warlord is called a warlady.


----------



## Xyl (Apr 21, 2008)

Sir Brennen said:
			
		

> Except the first thing my brain did was flip that around to read "Warhamster".
> 
> C'mon. It's not just me, is it?



You forgot to take your medication again, didn't you.


----------



## JesterOC (Apr 21, 2008)

LostInTheMists said:
			
		

> 5 Print "Thanks, theredrobedwizard!"
> 10 Goto 5
> 20 End
> QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## Surgoshan (Apr 21, 2008)

Chimera said:
			
		

> All these silly arguments over the name "warlord".
> 
> Here I'm more interested in knowing if a female warlord is called a warlady.




Wardame.  Warb****?  Warchick.  Warchica.


----------



## shadowguidex (Apr 22, 2008)

Call yourself whatever you want if you play a Warlord?

In my games, people never introduce their characters while RPing as "Bill the Fighter", it's always "William the Defender", or "Kurgen the Arcanist" instead of "Kurgen the Wizard".

If you wanna call yourself a Warlord, do it, if not use marshal, commander, captain, strategist, tactician, rallyer, noble, lieutenant, or whatever other title you decide to use for yourself, or just don't use a title.


----------



## ryryguy (Apr 22, 2008)

"Warlord" as a name doesn't bother me too much, and "Marshal" is not perhaps much of an improvement. 

But as a former history student, when I hear "warlord" I interpret it as Carnivorous Bean suggests: a military strong man who exercises *civil authority*.  Not just a guy leading some other soldiers - a guy who runs the whole place by force of arms.  Where "rule of law" and "force of arms" are one and the same.  Furthermore, a guy running a place by force of arms where there used to be some other authority that has collapsed or been displaced.

There are other definitions available, I'm sure... YMMV.  But that's what it means to me as a social science "term of art."


----------



## Voss (Apr 22, 2008)

ryryguy said:
			
		

> "Warlord" as a name doesn't bother me too much, and "Marshal" is not perhaps much of an improvement.
> 
> But as a former history student, when I hear "warlord" I interpret it as Carnivorous Bean suggests: a military strong man who exercises *civil authority*.  Not just a guy leading some other soldiers - a guy who runs the whole place by force of arms.  Where "rule of law" and "force of arms" are one and the same.  Furthermore, a guy running a place by force of arms where there used to be some other authority that has collapsed or been displaced.
> 
> There are other definitions available, I'm sure... YMMV.  But that's what it means to me as a social science "term of art."




Odd.  As a current history student, I can separate it from the modern, anachronistic meaning that doesn't have any relevance to the class, and use the classic, mythological and fantasy literature -inspired meaning without any problems.  

But I was always more interested in medieval and classical history anyway.

Marshal, on the other hand, is almost purely industrial age, maybe late renaissance for some of the more pedestrian 'civic authority' positions.  I can't relate that to a fantasy character at all.

On a lighter note, leave 'social science' to the sociologists.  History deserves better than to fed through the blender of science and chopped into meaningless facts with no interesting or relevant content.


----------



## JohnSnow (Apr 22, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Personally, I was thinking that a 'nature priest' style druid, without much combat-based wild shape, but with the ability to summon swarms, cause plants and the ground to move about, and control localized weather effects (rain, snow, temperature) would have fit a Divine Controller role quite nicely. I wouldn't mind it in the slightest if it replaced the Ranger (because it's not that iconic, and it's another martial striker).




Not that iconic? Not that ICONIC?! Not THAT ICONIC?!?!?

It's the ranger for gods sakes!! Archer. Woodsman. Tracker. Robin Hood. Hereward. Orion. Aragorn _and_ Legolas.

It would be better to totally dump the crappy "only in D&D!" cleric before I'll let you pry my ranger from my cold dead hands!

WotC has never said they were placing options for every role. They said they were fixing the problem of _requiring a cleric._ And if you don't think clerics are "required," play _Midnight_ without a character with the "healer" path, and then talk to me about how "unnecessary" clerics are in 3e. Whatever you think, without massive houseruling, a nice DM, or lots of magical equipment, a party without a cleric in 3e is just plain screwed. 

In 4e, a party without any particular class will face different challenges, not insurmountable ones.

To my mind, it would have been a good fix to merge the wizard with the cleric, so that the "not it!" class (cleric) and the "I call shotgun!" class (wizard) are the same character. That would probably balance fine and, combined with the changes in healing, would hardly be overpowered.

*sigh* Maybe in 5e.

Or maybe, just maybe, clerics will annoy me less now.

And...can we stop talking about the Warlord's name? It's done. The class is called Warlord. Deal with it.


----------



## ryryguy (Apr 22, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Odd.  As a current history student, I can separate it from the modern, anachronistic meaning that doesn't have any relevance to the class, and use the classic, mythological and fantasy literature -inspired meaning without any problems.




I can totally separate it too - as I said, using it for the class name doesn't bother me.  But for whatever reason, for me the modern meaning pops up in my head before the classic/fantasy meaning.   Perhaps after 4e comes out and we play with this new class for a while, that will switch around.

And... I've never commented on the Warlord class name before, in fact just created an account to comment on it because I think this is an interesting point.  Deal with it.  

(I promise not to keep commenting on it forever.   )


----------



## Hussar (Apr 22, 2008)

I could have lived with Warleader as well.  Then again, I've been reading Steven Erikson of late, and the idea of Warleader is just frikkin cool.

I gotta go with John Snow on this one.  While specifically a cleric may not have been required, you pretty much had to have something that did the job just as well - Favored Soul, etc.  A group without any divine spells died.  End of story.

And, try playing beyond about 13th level without access to Heal spells.


----------



## fba827 (Apr 22, 2008)

LostInTheMists said:
			
		

> So far, I like what I'm seeing with the Warlord, but one of my personal pet peeves has reared its ugly head again... wording ambiguity.  On the Tactical Warlord's daily power, "Lead the Attack", it reads like this:
> 
> *Lead the Attack Warlord Attack 1*_
> Under your direction, arrows hit their marks and blades drive home._
> ...




I, also, found it unclear and had the exact same question in mind.  But, without any official clarification, I shall choose to go with your first option as it seems the easiest to keep track of (don't have to recheck location-based bonuses every round, just go with what was there previously; plus this goes with the 4e mantra of everything being 'simplified').  It's also easy for me to justify to myself  "PC1 was so close and saw the warlord strike the BBEG hard and I saw how he did it.  He's not going to forget that when he walks a few squares over."  Whereas, if it were a magically-powered aura thing (rather than martial), then I'd go with your second option.

But, as you said, I agree that it's up for interpretation based on the way it is presented.  And I'll chose my view of it until I hear an official clarification.


----------



## Shroomy (Apr 22, 2008)

I'm pretty sure its number two because it doesn't say that it only affects you and your allies within 5 squares at the time it is used.  Also, it make the daily power more powerful and it is certainly more permissive.


----------



## Dausuul (Apr 22, 2008)

Shroomy said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure its number two because it doesn't say that it only affects you and your allies within 5 squares at the time it is used.  Also, it make the daily power more powerful and it is certainly more permissive.




More powerful?  IMO it makes it significantly _less_ powerful.  With option #2, everybody has to stay within 5 squares of you at all times or lose the benefit.  With option #1, you only have to get the other PCs within a 5-square radius for one moment; then you trigger the daily and the whole party turns into kobolds for the rest of the encounter.


----------



## Shroomy (Apr 22, 2008)

Dausuul said:
			
		

> More powerful?  IMO it makes it significantly _less_ powerful.  With option #2, everybody has to stay within 5 squares of you at all times or lose the benefit.  With option #1, you only have to get the other PCs within a 5-square radius for one moment; then you trigger the daily and the whole party turns into kobolds for the rest of the encounter.




Maybe "powerful" was a poor choice of words, "flexible" would probably work better.  However, I think it is more powerful because it can be applied to any PCs who enters the five-square area of effect, not just those who happened to be nearby at the time of its usage.


----------



## Sojorn (Apr 22, 2008)

Here's a question:

Does the fact that the "Until the end of the encounter" phase comes first in Lead the Attack and last in Bastion of Defense actually mean anything?

The phrasing makes it sound like Bastion of Defense is "Everyone within 5 squares of you right now gets +1 to defense" and then they keep it until the end of the encounter.

The phrasing of Lead the Attack makes it sound like you have an aura.


----------



## Shroomy (Apr 22, 2008)

Sojorn said:
			
		

> Here's a question:
> 
> Does the fact that the "Until the end of the encounter" phase comes first in Lead the Attack and last in Bastion of Defense actually mean anything?
> 
> ...




I don't think there is a difference between the two; it just different phrasing.


----------



## Rykaar (Apr 22, 2008)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> I won't lie, definitely disappointed about no at-will powers. I mean WOTC knows tons of people are showing people 4e through the pregens, we already have a lot of warlord dailies known. Instead of 2 dailies, couldn't we have gotten 2 at-wills and actually play the class?




First let me say I'm loving the crunch we've seen appearing recently from WotC's Tower of Secrets.  I think they're on the right track.  But I have to agree with Stalker0 that the warlord article was more than a bit light.  

Also, and in my mind more importantly and more generally, I'm continually frustrated with the fact that we really have no way of seeing how a character of any class looks at mid to high levels.  Without giving away all of a particular class's power list, how 'bout 2 of each level of encounter, daily, and utility, all the way up the ladder to 30?  For just ONE SAMPLE CLASS!!!We've seen stats on monsters at mid to high levels, but we just don't know how the average hero/paragon/rock star is going to stack up in comparison.

The question of "What are they like after level 1?" has been nagging me since the DDXP posts started appearing.

Oh, but in other respects, the warlord is not only a great idea for a class, but is symbolically the heart of the 4e game: the party's tactical unifier and coordinator.  There's so much room to play the class badly (and annoyingly) but equally much potential for glory.


----------



## hbarsquared (Apr 22, 2008)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> Yet now you have the warlock/warlord problem. In my last playtest, I accidentally called the warlock a warlord twice, and there wasn't even a warlord in the game.




It would also be unfortunate to have a warforged in the party.


----------



## DandD (Apr 22, 2008)

Imagine a Warforged Warlock/Warlord Multiclass character... The Tripple-War-Whatever.


----------



## small pumpkin man (Apr 22, 2008)

...in Warplate.


----------



## DandD (Apr 22, 2008)

... accompagnied by Warforged Warrior Minions... Or is it "Winions"?


----------



## entrerix (Apr 22, 2008)

wielding a warhammer...


warforged warlock/warlord wearing warplate wielding warhammers


----------



## fba827 (Apr 22, 2008)

entrerix said:
			
		

> warforged warlock/warlord wearing warplate wielding warhammers




Wait... what?  



*head explodes*


----------



## hong (Apr 22, 2008)

DandD said:
			
		

> ... accompagnied by Warforged Warrior Minions... Or is it "Winions"?



 If we assume the Inverse Ninja law, anyone who uses minions is destined to lose. Therefore they should be called "loseions".


----------



## Steely Dan (Apr 22, 2008)

Mercule said:
			
		

> Marshals are responsible for finding fugitives




Yeah, I do get an image of Tommy Lee Jones when I see the word marshal.

I've lived in America and the UK (currently) most of my life, and I have absolutely no problem with the word warlord.


----------



## Surgoshan (Apr 22, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> If we assume the Inverse Ninja law, anyone who uses minions is destined to lose. Therefore they should be called "loseions".




The Loseion Legion?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 22, 2008)

entrerix said:
			
		

> wielding a warhammer...
> 
> 
> warforged warlock/warlord wearing warplate wielding warhammers



warforged warlock/warlord wearing warplate wielding warhammers warring with wicked whispering witches.


----------



## Green Knight (Apr 22, 2008)

Two adventurers. A dual-wielding Warforged Warlord in Warplate with a Warhammer and a Warpick, and a Warforged Warlock with the Staff of the Warmage. 

They should have their own novel.


----------



## Protagonist (Apr 22, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> warforged warlock/warlord wearing warplate wielding warhammers warring with wicked whispering witches.




wow.


----------



## hong (Apr 22, 2008)

Green Knight said:
			
		

> Two adventurers. A dual-wielding Warforged Warlord in Warplate with a Warhammer and a Warpick,




Jet Li



> and a Warforged Warlock with the Staff of the Warmage.




Jackie Chan


----------



## Sir Brennen (Apr 22, 2008)

Green Knight said:
			
		

> Two adventurers. A dual-wielding Warforged Warlord in Warplate with a Warhammer and a Warpick, and a Warforged Warlock with the Staff of the Warmage...



They Fight Crime.


----------



## BradfordFerguson (Apr 22, 2008)

Warlord looks nice, but his low level powers require a STR vs AC to "hit"/"land" which is OK at lower levels but won't scale well.  So the class requires high STR to land the special abilities, leaving you with a tough decision of what to do with your other ability scores (and definitely forcing you to focus on either the CHA or INT tree).


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 22, 2008)

BradfordFerguson said:
			
		

> Warlord looks nice, but his low level powers require a STR vs AC to "hit"/"land" which is OK at lower levels but won't scale well.  So the class requires high STR to land the special abilities, leaving you with a tough decision of what to do with your other ability scores (and definitely forcing you to focus on either the CHA or INT tree).



Why won't it scale well?


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 22, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Why won't it scale well?



Presumably he doesn't realize that ability modifiers increase with level.


----------



## BradfordFerguson (Apr 22, 2008)

I'm guessing, maybe wrongly, that monster AC will scale up *much* faster than the STR modifier will.


----------



## Lacyon (Apr 22, 2008)

BradfordFerguson said:
			
		

> I'm guessing, maybe wrongly, that monster AC will scale up *much* faster than the STR modifier will.




The warlord makes Strength _attacks_ versus AC with his _weapon_.  This, presumably, means that he gets to add his _attack bonus_ (1/2 level) and his _magic weapon bonus_ to such rolls.

That seems like decent scaling to me.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 22, 2008)

BradfordFerguson said:
			
		

> I'm guessing, maybe wrongly, that monster AC will scale up *much* faster than the STR modifier will.



All modifiers (and thus all kind of attacks and defenses, including AC) will scale with level. 
The most visible scaling is the +1 per 2 levels, but there is additional one due to magical item bonus to attacks/defenses/ac, and due to ability score increases. (Monsters will probably rely more on ability increases then on magical increases).


----------



## ThirdWizard (Apr 22, 2008)

Here are some sample monsters and their ACs.

We'll assume a starting Str of 16 and with increases we'll say at 11th and 14th level (the first two were for Cha/Int), and a weapon with an enhancement bonus of +1 ever four levels (being conservative I believe). 

Boneshard Skeleton (level 5): AC 17 / Warlord +6 (11+)
Gnoll Huntmaster (level 5): AC 19  / Warlord +6 (13+)
Gnoll Clawfighter (level 6): AC 20 / Warlord +7 (13+)
Bugbear Headreaver (level 7): AC 20 / Warlord +7 (13+)
Gnoll Demonic Scourge (level 8): AC 20 / Warlord +9 (11+)
Gargoyle (level 9): AC 24 / Warlord +9 (15+)
Chuul (level 10): AC 27 / Warlord +10 (17+)
Boneclaw (level 14): AC 30 / Warlord +14 (16+)
Bodak Reaver (level 18): AC 31 / Warlord +16 (15+)
War Devil (level 22): AC 35 / Warlord +20 (15+)

Looks like our Warlord might really want to invest in Weapon Focus or something.


----------



## BradfordFerguson (Apr 22, 2008)

Cool thanks folks, that still leaves us forced to invest heavily in STR for the attack to hit/land, leaving us with less of a INT/CHA bonus to have the side benefit from the attack.

So my scale well comment may not apply.  I think folks are reading a negative mood to my original reply.  I'm simply pointing out what I notice.  The player WILL have a tough decision as far as allocating stats.  That isn't necessarily a good/bad thing.


----------



## Stalker0 (Apr 22, 2008)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Here are some sample monsters and their ACs.
> 
> We'll assume a starting Str of 16 and with increases we'll say at 11th and 14th level (the first two were for Cha/Int), and a weapon with an enhancement bonus of +1 ever four levels (being conservative I believe).
> 
> ...




It looks like your forgetting the bonus for weapon proficiency. At 5th level the warlord will likely have:

+2 (level) + 2 (weapon prof) + 3 (str) + 1 (magic weapon) = +8


----------



## Storm-Bringer (Apr 22, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I could have lived with Warleader as well.  Then again, I've been reading Steven Erikson of late, and the idea of Warleader is just frikkin cool.
> 
> I gotta go with John Snow on this one.  While specifically a cleric may not have been required, you pretty much had to have something that did the job just as well - Favored Soul, etc.  A group without any divine spells died.  End of story.
> 
> And, try playing beyond about 13th level without access to Heal spells.



But, that hasn't been _solved_, it has just been _re-distributed_.

If the complaint is that hit points are lost too easily or quickly, having more or getting them back more frequently is only a patch over the problem.


----------



## Cadfan (Apr 22, 2008)

I doubt the game was designed such that attacking with strength versus AC automatically fails at high levels.


----------



## small pumpkin man (Apr 22, 2008)

The Warlord is a Str based class, Cha/Int are secondary abilities, there's no reason for the Warlod's atacks to be more than two, maybe three points behind the fighter, and often they'll only be the one point behind that Fighters get from their class.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 22, 2008)

BradfordFerguson said:
			
		

> Cool thanks folks, that still leaves us forced to invest heavily in STR for the attack to hit/land, leaving us with less of a INT/CHA bonus to have the side benefit from the attack.
> 
> So my scale well comment may not apply.  I think folks are reading a negative mood to my original reply.  I'm simply pointing out what I notice.  The player WILL have a tough decision as far as allocating stats.  That isn't necessarily a good/bad thing.



I really got more the impression you just didn't know. 

I agree - the Warlord will have to spend some of his resources in strength. But that fits the archetype, I think (at least for Fantasy). It appears as if most classes rely on 1 primary and 2 secondary attributes. The secondary attributes have the advantage that you can focus on one of them (especially if you follow the advice for class builds.) The Rogue was similar, he needed Dex as primary and Cha and Str as secondary.


----------



## DandD (Apr 22, 2008)

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> But, that hasn't been _solved_, it has just been _re-distributed_.
> 
> If the complaint is that hit points are lost too easily or quickly, having more or getting them back more frequently is only a patch over the problem.



The complaints before was that there was absolutely no way to restore hitpoints without any divine magic at all safe for some measly hp-recovery after an extended rest, before you had to go on. Now that you can regain hitpoints after a battle withtout the needs of a dedicated healer class, or get them full back after an extended rest, there isn't the absolute impetous to have dedicated healers anymore. They'll still give an advantage especially in combat, but they don't have to be reduced to only that role. That's why it isn't a patch, but a real fix.


----------



## Storm-Bringer (Apr 22, 2008)

DandD said:
			
		

> The complaints before was that there was absolutely no way to restore hitpoints without any divine magic at all safe for some measly hp-recovery after an extended rest, before you had to go on. Now that you can regain hitpoints after a battle withtout the needs of a dedicated healer class, or get them full back after an extended rest, there isn't the absolute impetous to have dedicated healers anymore. They'll still give an advantage especially in combat, but they don't have to be reduced to only that role. That's why it isn't a patch, but a real fix.



But you _do_ have healers, perhaps not 'dedicated', but nonetheless, you still have the Paladin, Warlord and Cleric, plus individual healing surges.  It will only postpone the problem.  A bunch of bad rolls in the first couple of combats for the day, and without a 'healer', you are right back to your original issue.

The problem you are discussing isn't 'not enough healing', the problem you are discussing is 'precipitous hit point loss'.  Any solution involving 'healing', either the frequency or the potency, is a patch on the underlying problem.


----------



## kilpatds (Apr 22, 2008)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Here are some sample monsters and their ACs.
> 
> We'll assume a starting Str of 16 and with increases we'll say at 11th and 14th level (the first two were for Cha/Int), and a weapon with an enhancement bonus of +1 ever four levels (being conservative I believe).




I'm currently expecting the stat improvements to be more like SAGAs: two different stats at each point, so that you can increase your primary stat each time.

Also, as someone else mentioned, there's the static proficiency bonus.  Assuming +2:

Boneshard Skeleton (level 5): AC 17 / Warlord +8 (9+)
Gnoll Huntmaster (level 5): AC 19  / Warlord +8 (11+)
Gnoll Clawfighter (level 6): AC 20 / Warlord +9 (11+)
Bugbear Headreaver (level 7): AC 20 / Warlord +9 (11+)
Gnoll Demonic Scourge (level 8): AC 20 / Warlord +12 (8+)
Gargoyle (level 9): AC 24 / Warlord +12 (12+)
Chuul (level 10): AC 27 / Warlord +13 (14+)
Boneclaw (level 14): AC 30 / Warlord +16 (14+)
Bodak Reaver (level 18): AC 31 / Warlord +20 (11+)
War Devil (level 22): AC 35 / Warlord +23 (12+)

Which also is not really fully scaling, but is pretty close.  If you add in leader bufs, that probably scales better.

If I add in a second stat bonus, on the theory that some leader will give you his second stat (14, +2 per 8 levels), then it looks like this:

Boneshard Skeleton (level 5): AC 17 / Warlord +10 (7+)
Gnoll Huntmaster (level 5): AC 19  / Warlord +10 (9+)
Gnoll Clawfighter (level 6): AC 20 / Warlord +11 (9+)
Bugbear Headreaver (level 7): AC 20 / Warlord +11 (9+)
Gnoll Demonic Scourge (level 8): AC 20 / Warlord +15 (5+)
Gargoyle (level 9): AC 24 / Warlord +15 (9+)
Chuul (level 10): AC 27 / Warlord +16 (11+)
Boneclaw (level 14): AC 30 / Warlord +19 (11+)
Bodak Reaver (level 18): AC 31 / Warlord +24 (7+)
War Devil (level 22): AC 35 / Warlord +27 (8+)

Which scales very well.  And gives generally pleasing numbers.  The only thing I see is that the every 8 levels becomes jumpy, from the +1 weapon, +2 stats, +1 level all hitting at the same time.


----------



## DandD (Apr 22, 2008)

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> But you _do_ have healers, perhaps not 'dedicated', but nonetheless, you still have the Paladin, Warlord and Cleric, plus individual healing surges.  It will only postpone the problem.  A bunch of bad rolls in the first couple of combats for the day, and without a 'healer', you are right back to your original issue.



A bunch of bad rolls in the first couple of combats always puts you in the worst shape possible, healer or not. 


> The problem you are discussing isn't 'not enough healing', the problem you are discussing is 'precipitous hit point loss'.  Any solution involving 'healing', either the frequency or the potency, is a patch on the underlying problem.



Nope, it isn't, because hitpoints are the most valuable ressource in this game. And the problem before was that only the dedicated healers could generate that valuable thing for the amount you lost. If they couldn't do it anymore, nobody was going to continue at all. 

Now, everybody can generate hitpoints, some classes just do it a little better than the others, but they don't have a complete monopol over it. And the formerly dedicated healer classes can now begin to contribute in other ways instead of only creating more and more hitpoints to refil those who have been lost.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Apr 22, 2008)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> It looks like your forgetting the bonus for weapon proficiency. At 5th level the warlord will likely have:
> 
> +2 (level) + 2 (weapon prof) + 3 (str) + 1 (magic weapon) = +8




Aha! Thanks!


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 22, 2008)

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> But you _do_ have healers, perhaps not 'dedicated', but nonetheless, you still have the Paladin, Warlord and Cleric, plus individual healing surges.  It will only postpone the problem.  A bunch of bad rolls in the first couple of combats for the day, and without a 'healer', you are right back to your original issue.
> 
> The problem you are discussing isn't 'not enough healing', the problem you are discussing is 'precipitous hit point loss'.  Any solution involving 'healing', either the frequency or the potency, is a patch on the underlying problem.



1) Who could heal at all? - Only with a spellcaster. 
2) How long can you go? - As long as the spellcaster had healing spells. (Outside of combat, Wands work, too. You need someone that can use them, though.)

4E changes this to: 
1) Every Leader-type class will be able to heal. And you can also self-heal.
2) You can go as long as you have Healing Surges. (outside of combats, you can do it yourself)


----------



## Lacyon (Apr 22, 2008)

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> But you _do_ have healers, perhaps not 'dedicated', but nonetheless, you still have the Paladin, Warlord and Cleric, plus individual healing surges.  It will only postpone the problem.  A bunch of bad rolls in the first couple of combats for the day, and without a 'healer', you are right back to your original issue.




Put more points in CON. Take the Toughness Feat. You can solve this problem with no party healer, without any magical healing at all.



			
				Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> The problem you are discussing isn't 'not enough healing', the problem you are discussing is 'precipitous hit point loss'.  Any solution involving 'healing', either the frequency or the potency, is a patch on the underlying problem.




Precipitous hit point loss is a feature, not a bug.


----------



## That One Guy (Apr 22, 2008)

Moniker said:
			
		

> I cannot believe people are still upset over the class name. If you don't like it, _houserule it._ Rule 0, folks!



this.


			
				Sir Brennen said:
			
		

> They Fight Crime.



Best quote of the day.

Silly question... could someone quantify how many strikers/defenders/etc. were released with PHBs/D&D sets in ye olden day (pre-3)? I know the roles were not so clearly defined, but could someone humour me?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 22, 2008)

Lacyon said:
			
		

> Precipitous hit point loss is a feature, not a bug.




Abso.

Lutely.

I want to be at the brink of death and then come surging back much more than I want to be nickel-and-dimed for 10 rounds.


----------



## TwoSix (Apr 22, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Jet Li
> 
> Jackie Chan




So you're saying a Warforged Warlord in Warplate with a Warhammer and a Warpick, and a Warforged Warlock with the Staff of the Warmage is wuxia?


----------



## Caliber (Apr 22, 2008)

That One Guy said:
			
		

> this.
> 
> Best quote of the day.
> 
> Silly question... could someone quantify how many strikers/defenders/etc. were released with PHBs/D&D sets in ye olden day (pre-3)? I know the roles were not so clearly defined, but could someone humour me?




Hrm. Been a long time since I thought about pre3E. From what I can remember, the classes in the initial 2E PHB (the edition I started in) were grouped together into rough groups, that could almost be seen as analagous to the roles we will have in 4E. 

2E's PHB had ... Fighter, Ranger, Paladin (in the Warrior group), Cleric and Druid (Priest group), Bard and Thief (uh ... something group?) and Wizard (in Wizard group?). Of course you also had your specialized Wizards. The Bard and Thief weren't much in the Striker category really ... more like specialized skill users (and considering 2E's weird skill system, generally the only ones who actually used skills, IME). Priests and Druids were undoubtedly healers, with the Fighter/Ranger/Paladin line-up being Defender-Strikers. Wizards were (as in 3E) a pretty flexible guy, who would eventually grow into nearly any role he chose to dabble in. Still, the default was what would be a Controller in 4E. 

All IMO, of course. And also in my sometimes fault memory.


----------



## Voss (Apr 22, 2008)

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> The Warlord is a Str based class, Cha/Int are secondary abilities, there's no reason for the Warlod's atacks to be more than two, maybe three points behind the fighter, and often they'll only be the one point behind that Fighters get from their class.




Actually... with everyone using the same progression, there isn't a reason for the warlord's attack bonus to be behind at all.


----------



## JohnSnow (Apr 22, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Abso.
> 
> Lutely.
> 
> I want to be at the brink of death and then come surging back much more than I want to be nickel-and-dimed for 10 rounds.




Stock up on post-apocalyptic supplies. I agree with Kamikaze Midget. Truly this must be a sign of the end of days. 

I like precipitous hit point loss, as long as it goes hand-in-hand with the possibility to come surging back. That's why I liked Reserve Points in _Iron Heroes_ and second wind in _Star Wars Saga Edition_, and it's why I like healing surges in 4E. Moreover, I personally prefer that we not have to worry too much about how tough the last fight was.

I like that hit points provide a simple way to model fatigue build-up as characters go through more fights. They're equally effective, but if they push on for too long, they're going to get tired and are more likely to get killed. Strangely, heroes seem to usually have this way of avoiding serious injury - short of getting killed, that is.

It's a good thing that characters in 4E can last through more fights in a day than their 3e counterparts. Before anyone says that "the problem has just been postponed," I'll point out that it's _also_ a good thing that there is a _limit_ to how long they can go on. This last point is a nod to "realism" - running out of healing surges is 4E's way of letting you know the characters are fatigued and need to rest.

I'll finally add the following, specifically to keep this "on topic." In my opinion, it's a good thing that characters can be "healed" by things other than divine magic. I have always felt it should be possible to have characters that are at "full hit points" (that is, totally combat effective) but sporting numerous superficial injuries. Obviously, the distinction is that superficial injuries are those which are healed enough that they are not going to get infected, go gangrenous, or lead to any of the other complications that frequently happen in pre-modern society.

It also seems to me that the Fourth Edition hit point system could be easily augmented with a houserule for serious injuries - if one was inclined to go gritty á la _Black Company_ or _Thieves' World_.


----------



## Stalker0 (Apr 22, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Actually... with everyone using the same progression, there isn't a reason for the warlord's attack bonus to be behind at all.




Well we believe that the fighter gets a +1 class bonus to attack rolls, so he will be a bit farther ahead

The question is, what secondary options does the fighter have? Aka, will the fighter want to commit all of his ability bumps to strength?


----------



## Kordeth (Apr 22, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Actually... with everyone using the same progression, there isn't a reason for the warlord's attack bonus to be behind at all.




Yeah, but the fighter's probably going to dump more of his attribute points into Str, spend more feats on attack-boosters like Weapon Focus, and may have class abilities that bump his attack bonus with certain weapons (like the rogue gets with daggers, IIRC) that will probably put the average fighter a point or two above the average warlord.


----------



## Alkiera (Apr 22, 2008)

I agree that the stat gains will probably be like SAGA... i.e. +1 to 2 stats every 4 levels, can't spend them both on one.  So depending on starting build, it'll likely be +1 prime stat, +1 sec stat A, then next time +1 prime stat, +1 sec stat B; meaning +1 to prime stat every 4 levels or so, or +1 prime mod every 8 levels.

As for a grittier damage system, with injuries... anytime you get knocked below 0, roll a d12 for hit location.  For every failed roll on the 'death test', roll 1d4, apply that as stat damage to a stat appropriate to the location.  Limbs, str or dex, torso, con or cha, head, int or will, something like that. Rule it heals like 3E, 1 pt per stat per extended rest... Perhaps allow a cleric's healing word to expend a healing surge to cure a point, instead.  Or 1d4 points.  If divine/magical healing is used, no scar... without divine aid, you get left with a nasty scar.  8)

I know they're getting rid of +/- stat stuff in 4E, but at least this would only require calculation once, when you (nearly) die, and then once each day till you heal.  Also makes near-death experiences more interesting, IMO.


----------



## JohnSnow (Apr 22, 2008)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> Well we believe that the fighter gets a +1 class bonus to attack rolls, so he will be a bit farther ahead
> 
> The question is, what secondary options does the fighter have? Aka, will the fighter want to commit all of his ability bumps to strength?




It seems fighters gain benefits from good scores in other stats. For example, the following was in a _Design & Development_ article WAYYY back in August.



			
				Design & Development: Fighters - Choice of Weapons said:
			
		

> “Yeah. I thought about going high Con and using a hammer, but I wanted to start with the chance to make a couple of attacks, so I’m using rain of blows as my good weapon attack, and I went with high Wis so that I can switch to the better oppy powers later.”
> 
> “My elf fighter uses a spear. I like the speed and the option to go past AC. But you’ve got the fighter covered. I’ll play a halfling rogue.”




Which tends to imply that either wisdom or constitution are available as good secondary scores. Which makes sense. Most fighters probably also need/want a good dex to help with AC and Reflex Defense. They don't _need_ a high-Con for the Fort Defense (since they can use strength), but it sure won't hurt for a fighter to have more healing surges.

I think we'll see every class being able to survive with 3 good scores. Coincidentally, I imagine those will be the scores they need to boost their 3 defenses. In other words, I highly doubt that you'll ever see a character who NEEDS 4 high scores. Benefits from them? Sure. But needs? Not likely. 

IMO, of course.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Apr 22, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Abso.
> 
> Lutely.
> 
> I want to be at the brink of death and then come surging back much more than I want to be nickel-and-dimed for 10 rounds.




Really? It seems to me that the only way to challenge my players at 17th level is to nearly kill someone every round, dropping them by 120 to 180 hit points per round. Then they get _heal_ cast on them. Then they get dropped by 120 to 180 hit points again. It's very tedious and boring if you ask me (which you didn't, but I dun care!).


----------



## JohnSnow (Apr 22, 2008)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Really? It seems to me that the only way to challenge my players at 17th level is to nearly kill someone every round, dropping them by 120 to 180 hit points per round. Then they get _heal_ cast on them. Then they get dropped by 120 to 180 hit points again. It's very tedious and boring if you ask me (which you didn't, but I dun care!).




Umm...I think we need to discuss the happy medium here. Every round, it's annoying. By the same token, if the fight lasts 10-20 rounds with no real injuries to speak of, that's also pretty tedious.

The ideal situation (IMO, of course) would be for the characters to be slowly worn away at for a few rounds before being dropped. Then, if they come surging back _once or twice_ in a fight, we have the makings of a dramatic and memorable combat. In other words, we get a combat that plays out more like the memorable fight scenes from action films, swashbucklers, or even sword & sorcery novels.

In other words, swingy is good, but too swingy is bad.


----------



## Spatula (Apr 22, 2008)

Hm, is Str vs AC really a weapon attack roll?  Because that looks like an ability check to me, which would mean no proficiency bonus and possibly no magic bonus.  But, people are forgetting that the warlord is providing bonuses to himself along with the rest of the party, so I don't think one will have a problem keeping up with monster ACs.  We can see in ThirdWizard's list that the warlord's attacks fall more and more behind as the levels go up, but the warlord will have access to better powers at higher levels, which are probably giving better bonuses.


----------



## Lacyon (Apr 22, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> Hm, is Str vs AC really a weapon attack roll?  Because that looks like an ability check to me, which would mean no proficiency bonus and possibly no magic bonus.  But, people are forgetting that the warlord is providing bonuses to himself along with the rest of the party, so I don't think one will have a problem keeping up with monster ACs.  We can see in ThirdWizard's list that the warlord's attacks fall more and more behind as the levels go up, but the warlord will have access to better powers at higher levels, which are probably giving better bonuses.




Standard Action Melee *weapon*
Target: One creature
*Attack*: Strength vs. AC


----------



## Storm-Bringer (Apr 22, 2008)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Really? It seems to me that the only way to challenge my players at 17th level is to nearly kill someone every round, dropping them by 120 to 180 hit points per round. Then they get _heal_ cast on them. Then they get dropped by 120 to 180 hit points again. It's very tedious and boring if you ask me (which you didn't, but I dun care!).



Agreed.  It doesn't seem like precipitous hit point loss is really favoured, if the response is, 'I get them back next round!'.

In other words, if you are losing all those hit points, but getting them mostly back between or during encounters from healing - surges, magic, warlord yelling, etc. - then taking an extended rest to get them all back when you run out, what you really want is just a bunch more hit points.  At that point, one may as well take a page from Toon, and state that losing all hit points means you are 'knocked out', and you are back to full for the next 'scene'.

In other words, getting large amounts of hit points back is a patch for the real issue:  still not enough hit points.


----------



## Lacyon (Apr 22, 2008)

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> In other words, if you are losing all those hit points, but getting them mostly back between or during encounters from healing - surges, magic, warlord yelling, etc. - then taking an extended rest to get them all back when you run out, what you really want is just a bunch more hit points.




This is completely backwards. You want PCs to face the threat of death or loss during an encounter. You want them to then be able to recover enough to face the next death-threatening encounter.



			
				Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> In other words, getting large amounts of hit points back is a patch for the real issue: still not enough hit points.




No, getting a pile of extra hit points would be a bad patch on the real issue.


----------



## Victim (Apr 22, 2008)

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> Agreed.  It doesn't seem like precipitous hit point loss is really favoured, if the response is, 'I get them back next round!'.
> 
> In other words, if you are losing all those hit points, but getting them mostly back between or during encounters from healing - surges, magic, warlord yelling, etc. - then taking an extended rest to get them all back when you run out, what you really want is just a bunch more hit points.  At that point, one may as well take a page from Toon, and state that losing all hit points means you are 'knocked out', and you are back to full for the next 'scene'.
> 
> In other words, getting large amounts of hit points back is a patch for the real issue:  still not enough hit points.




I disagree.  To use an analogy, there's a significant difference between getting X dollars right now, and getting X dollars spread out over a longer period of time.  At the end of that time period, you may have spent the same amount of money, but the way the money is spent is likely quite different.  Even before you get into things like present value.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Apr 22, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Umm...I think we need to discuss the happy medium here. Every round, it's annoying. By the same token, if the fight lasts 10-20 rounds with no real injuries to speak of, that's also pretty tedious.




Who ever said that was how 4e is?



> The ideal situation (IMO, of course) would be for the characters to be slowly worn away at for a few rounds before being dropped. Then, if they come surging back _once or twice_ in a fight, we have the makings of a dramatic and memorable combat. In other words, we get a combat that plays out more like the memorable fight scenes from action films, swashbucklers, or even sword & sorcery novels.




That's more like 4e (as it played for me).



			
				Lacyon said:
			
		

> No, getting a pile of extra hit points would be a bad patch on the real issue.




What's the issue again?


----------



## Alkiera (Apr 22, 2008)

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> Agreed.  It doesn't seem like precipitous hit point loss is really favoured, if the response is, 'I get them back next round!'.
> 
> In other words, if you are losing all those hit points, but getting them mostly back between or during encounters from healing - surges, magic, warlord yelling, etc. - then taking an extended rest to get them all back when you run out, what you really want is just a bunch more hit points.  At that point, one may as well take a page from Toon, and state that losing all hit points means you are 'knocked out', and you are back to full for the next 'scene'.
> 
> In other words, getting large amounts of hit points back is a patch for the real issue:  still not enough hit points.




Really, getting large amounts of hp back isn't the patch, it's the problem.  The patch is encounters that do scads of damage each round to combat the fact that they just come back the next round until the cleric runs out of Heal spells.  As the DM stated, he has to use those kinds of encounters in order to challenge the party.  If they didn't all come back every round due to a 6th level spell, the DM could use more moderate damage enemies.  Otherwise, to have any hope of endangering the PCs, enemies have to be able to do their entire hp in damage in one round; or outlast the cleric's number of Heal spells(~5 at lvl 17, plus a mass heal).

This is back to the 'attrition-based combat' model, where the monsters must either have enough hp/defenses that they can sit in the fight while the party completely Heals each person they get close to killing, or they must be able to kill a PC in a single round.

4E fixes this by limiting the in-combat healing that can be done.  You get your second wind, +leader healing (2/encounter), and maybe a paladin heal or two... and all but second wind are party resources.  The amount of in-combat healing at high levels may have gone down (from what we can currently see).  Thus enemies will act similarly at all levels, being a threat to PCs, without being a 'ooh, good round, took out that PCs entire hp in one round' threat.  Similarly, only luck will let a PC one-shot an appropriately challenging NPC, if it's not a minion.


----------



## morbiczer (Apr 22, 2008)

bramadan said:
			
		

> My only objection to Warlord name is that it implies great power and expertise. It is as if wizard class was renamed Archmage. I think the class should have been called "Captain" or "Commander" with "Warlord" being saved for a paragon path.




I agree.


----------



## Lacyon (Apr 22, 2008)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> What's the issue again?




The issue, as far as I'm concerned, plays out as follows:

1) Encounters are more interesting when the PCs feel like they're getting somewhat close to defeat by the end. 'Close to defeat' in a combat encounter means getting low on HP.
2) PCs need the ability to take on more than one encounter per day, and subsequent encounters should not in general have to be made easier for them on the basis that they've already blown through a bunch of HP.

This leads to 
3) PCs must have some way to recover HPs between encounters.

Combining that with
4) Traditionally, D&D has required either magical healing or extensive rest to recover HP, and extensive rest is a pretty severe restriction on encounter frequency.

yields
5) Traditionally, D&D has required someone to play a character capable of magical healing, or the DM has had provide/handwave that magic away, in order for the party to have combat encounters with any frequency and hope to survive.

Healing Surges as described remove 4) for us by allowing any PC to recover HPs on their own without extensive rest. The "problem"* of requiring a cleric to adventure is solved.

Simply adding a pile of HP in the beginning either violates 1) or leads to inflated encounter strength, leading us back to the same issue, just with bigger numbers.

*I use scare quotes here because obviously some people _like_ that clerics are required. Heck, _I_ like that its required for some of the games I run/play in, but not all of them. I'm not afraid to either stick with 3E for those games or mod 4E to add it back in when I feel it's appropriate.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Apr 22, 2008)

Alkiera said:
			
		

> or outlast the cleric's number of Heal spells(~5 at lvl 17, plus a mass heal).




Heh, you wish. 

The cleric/warmage has his prepared _heal_ spells plus about 10 on scrolls, the mystic theurge has his prepared _heal_ spells plus about 10 on scrolls, and the party rogue has about 10 more _heal_ scrolls which he cannot fail his Use Magic Device check for.

Try, just _try_ to challenge that party without risking a TPK every combat.



			
				Lacyon said:
			
		

> Healing Surges as described remove 4) for us by allowing any PC to recover HPs on their own without extensive rest. The "problem"* of requiring a cleric to adventure is solved.




The big thing about healing surges that I absolutely _love_ is that it gives the PCs lots of resources for healing throughout the day but says that they cannot burst it all in one encounter. (This relates to the per encounter ideal, of course.) So, you can challenge the PCs in one fight and bring them to the brink of death, and after that fight, _you can do it again_!

Under the traditional vancian resource allocation, this is extremely difficult. There's nothing saying the cleric can't cast _heal_ five times in a combat (or in my case... um... a bajillion), so I have to design encounters expecting that they will, otherwise, they are under no danger.

I've been saying _heal_ is the problem with 3e for years and years. It's why monsters do so much damage, it makes all other cure spells next to worthless, it takes over the entire high level game. I think if 3e hadn't had that one spell, it would have extended the sweet spot by at least five levels. I guess at this point we'll never know, though. A pity.


----------



## Victim (Apr 22, 2008)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Try, just _try_ to challenge that party without risking a TPK every combat.




Negative levels.


----------



## Lacyon (Apr 22, 2008)

Victim said:
			
		

> Negative levels.




Substitute 'Levels' for 'HP' and 'Restoration' for 'Heal'.

The fundamental problem remains the same.


----------



## Sir Sebastian Hardin (Apr 22, 2008)

Sorry for this offtopic but...
Can someone copy/paste the text here please? I'm in a PC of my college and I can't enter wizards' web in this PC.


----------



## DandD (Apr 22, 2008)

Victim said:
			
		

> Negative levels.



 That's just bothersome due to ham-fisted re-calculations. Slows down combat in a terrible way, as the one getting negative levels needs to recalculate everything again and so wastes time for everybody, and additionally grinds the game to a halt, where all excitement is killed.


----------



## Victim (Apr 22, 2008)

Lacyon said:
			
		

> Substitute 'Levels' for 'HP' and 'Restoration' for 'Heal'.
> 
> The fundamental problem remains the same.




No, because Restoration takes 3 rounds to cast.  

Negative levels don't require much recalculation, since they basically apply to every d20 you roll.  It's slower because you have to take an extra step per roll, but it's not like you have rewrite a bunch of numbers on the character sheet.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 22, 2008)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Heh, you wish.
> 
> The cleric/warmage has his prepared _heal_ spells plus about 10 on scrolls, the mystic theurge has his prepared _heal_ spells plus about 10 on scrolls, and the party rogue has about 10 more _heal_ scrolls which he cannot fail his Use Magic Device check for.
> 
> ...




You really need to teach your players the power of the Staff of Healing or similar magical items! Scrolls are way to expensive! 

My Radiant Servant of Pelor had one. It was definitely helpful, except in those encounters where we lost one PC per round before the Cleric could act. or the encounters where enemies dealt 2d6 points con drain without any attached qualifiers, making it impossible to heal during an encounter. (Oh, and I also rememeber that I've used the Staff against Undead, too....)


----------



## med stud (Apr 22, 2008)

Just because there are counters for Heal doesn't mean there is no problems with it. If you have to bend over backwards to come up with counters for one spell, I say the spell is broken.


----------



## Lacyon (Apr 22, 2008)

Victim said:
			
		

> No, because Restoration takes 3 rounds to cast.
> 
> Negative levels don't require much recalculation, since they basically apply to every d20 you roll.  It's slower because you have to take an extra step per roll, but it's not like you have rewrite a bunch of numbers on the character sheet.




"Activating a spell completion item is a standard action and provokes attacks of opportunity exactly as casting a spell does."

You have more expensive scrolls, but not by much.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Apr 22, 2008)

Victim said:
			
		

> Negative levels.




I've actually tried it.. It doesn't actually do much but slow down the game and frustrates players. I want a way to challenge them so that they enjoy it, not so that they pull their hair out.

I tried a pack of dread wraiths last session. 1d8 Con drain looks deadly, but with 104 hp, the PCs drop them like flies. Oh, and it slows down the game, too. *sigh*



			
				Lacyon said:
			
		

> Substitute 'Levels' for 'HP' and 'Restoration' for 'Heal'.




Know what really sucks about _restoration_? 3 round casting time.

Round 1: "Don't worry I'll get those negative levels!"
Round 2: "Don't die, dude, almost done!"
Round 3: "Battle's over? Oh... Um... here's your levels back."


----------



## JohnSnow (Apr 22, 2008)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> That's more like 4e (as it played for me).




ThirdWizard, I think you and I are in agreement as to how 4E will/does play. I agree with you that constantly having to drop PCs and have them pop back up is annoying. However, I also agree with Kamikaze Midget that having PCs go down and then come surging back to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat is cool. As such, simply tripling (or quadrupling, or whatever) the pool of hit points, as some have suggested, doesn't provide that sense of characters that are frequently on the "edge of defeat," or "in danger of dying."

Caveat: I have not playtested 4e. However, I'm reasonably certain that it will provide that exciting surge back to victory often enough without it becoming so routine as to become tedious. Similarly, I believe that the mechanics for negative hit points and healing surge recovery, which I realize some people dislike as "unrealistic," allows one to make each encounter satisfyingly "risky" without leading to the "single encounter adventuring day."

The alternative of simply making the "pool of hit points" larger instead leads to attrition-based adventuring, where the only encounter with a real hint of dramatic tension is the one where you're actually low on hit points. Since many players tend to stop before they get there, DMs instead make every encounter more dangerous, thus creating the "15-minute adventuring day" problem.

That's a very real problem that I believe 4e has solved. In the process of finding that solution, they also came up with a rationale for hit points that made a non-magical healing class viable in the game. Hence, we have the Warlord. Personally, I believe this is a substantial improvment on many levels.

(See how I tied that in and made this post actually on-topic?  )


----------



## ThirdWizard (Apr 22, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> You really need to teach your players the power of the Staff of Healing or similar magical items! Scrolls are way to expensive!




Shhh... they don't know about it.


----------



## Emirikol (Apr 22, 2008)

*The Warlord Gives Official License For Players To Boss Antoher Player Around*

The only thing that bugs me about the bard..errrrr' Warlord is that described, he's a leader.  Most of us will take that to be just that..but the IDIOTS in our hobby will take that as an excuse to boss other players (not PC's..actual players) around and tell them how to run their characters.

jh


----------



## JohnSnow (Apr 22, 2008)

Emirikol said:
			
		

> The only thing that bugs me about the bard..errrrr' Warlord is that described, he's a leader.  Most of us will take that to be just that..but the IDIOTS in our hobby will take that as an excuse to boss other players (not PC's..actual players) around and tell them how to run their characters.
> 
> jh




Table etiquette and peer pressure should fix that right quick.


----------



## Surgoshan (Apr 22, 2008)

People often compare dealing with players to herding cats, yet they never think of the obvious solution.  Train your players like you train cats; bring a water gun to the table and squirt a player whenever he's obnoxious.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Apr 22, 2008)

Emirikol said:
			
		

> The only thing that bugs me about the bard..errrrr' Warlord is that described, he's a leader.  Most of us will take that to be just that..but the IDIOTS in our hobby will take that as an excuse to boss other players (not PC's..actual players) around and tell them how to run their characters.



From personal experience, people like that don't need the excuse. I have already put that kind of player near the top of my personal list of least favorite player archetypes, without ever seeing anything like the warlord in the game (well, other than my own White Raven Warblade character). Actually, in my experience, the worst possible place for a bossy player is already in the game: the role of DM. There is no way a bossy "Leader" can compare to a bossy DM.


----------



## JohnSnow (Apr 22, 2008)

Surgoshan said:
			
		

> People often compare dealing with players to herding cats, yet they never think of the obvious solution.  Train your players like you train cats; bring a water gun to the table and squirt a player whenever he's obnoxious.




My copy of _Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay_ suggests hurling "dice, food, or whatever else you can think of" at a player who is being obnoxious. I guess D&D probably can't include a similar recommendation, but it's nice to dream.


----------



## Storm-Bringer (Apr 22, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> ThirdWizard, I think you and I are in agreement as to how 4E will/does play. I agree with you that constantly having to drop PCs and have them pop back up is annoying. However, I also agree with Kamikaze Midget that having PCs go down and then come surging back to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat is cool. As such, simply tripling (or quadrupling, or whatever) the pool of hit points, as some have suggested, doesn't provide that sense of characters that are frequently on the "edge of defeat," or "in danger of dying."



Except they aren't really, until they are out of healing surges.  As long as they have available healing surges (or second wind, or the warlord, or the cleric, etc), then they really aren't in _danger_.  You have a safety net.



> Caveat: I have not playtested 4e. However, I'm reasonably certain that it will provide that exciting surge back to victory often enough without it becoming so routine as to become tedious. Similarly, I believe that the mechanics for negative hit points and healing surge recovery, which I realize some people dislike as "unrealistic," allows one to make each encounter satisfyingly "risky" without leading to the "single encounter adventuring day."



Again, this is solved with increasing the hit points.  Unless your hit points are less than the critical hit damage of an opponent (or whatever their most damaging attack is), your character isn't really in danger of losing anything.  Now, certainly, you can take a gamble and not use a healing surge.

I like the money analogy, it fits the best.  If your checking account (hit points) is low, you can whip out the credit card (healing surge) and cover your purchase.  Alternately, someone else can use your credit card for you (cleric) or put some money in your account (certain warlord powers).  But unless you are within a certain amount of overdrafting, there isn't really a 'danger' of going over with any given purchase (attack).



> The alternative of simply making the "pool of hit points" larger instead leads to attrition-based adventuring, where the only encounter with a real hint of dramatic tension is the one where you're actually low on hit points. Since many players tend to stop before they get there, DMs instead make every encounter more dangerous, thus creating the "15-minute adventuring day" problem.



Spreading out the hit points doesn't really change that.  You still aren't in any real danger unless you are out of healing surges or other healing for the day (barring neglect or carelessness).  So, you have more of a day before stopping for rest, but you get everything back with six hours of rest anyway, so marginally watching your resources makes each battle what Third Wizard named a tedious cycle.



> That's a very real problem that I believe 4e has solved. In the process of finding that solution, they also came up with a rationale for hit points that made a non-magical healing class viable in the game. Hence, we have the Warlord. Personally, I believe this is a substantial improvment on many levels.
> 
> (See how I tied that in and made this post actually on-topic?  )



But, we haven't corrected anything.  The 'solution' is more spread out, by allowing everyone some degree of re-gaining hit points, but that is a solution to 'requiring a cleric', which appears to be a play problem, not a rules problem.  Underlying that is the precipitous loss of hit points.  Dropping a character in one hit is a danger any time hit points get low.  In previous editions, that was most of first and second level.

Which is what makes things 'swingy' no matter where you start.  As soon as your hit points are below the threshold of critical hit damage, you are in danger of being 'one-shotted' again.  If you start with 30hps, and take 5hp of damage in four attacks, you are in danger of getting taken out in one shot again.


----------



## Lacyon (Apr 22, 2008)

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> Except they aren't really, until they are out of healing surges.  As long as they have available healing surges (or second wind, or the warlord, or the cleric, etc), then they really aren't in _danger_.  You have a safety net.




You have a small in-battle safety net in the form of Second Wind. Some characters can make that a bigger in-battle safety net in the form of Healing Words or Laying on Hands or whatever. But _those run out well before healing surges do!_



			
				Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> Which is what makes things 'swingy' no matter where you start.  As soon as your hit points are below the threshold of critical hit damage, you are in danger of being 'one-shotted' again.  If you start with 30hps, and take 5hp of damage in four attacks, you are in danger of getting taken out in one shot again.




Yes. You are in danger of being one-shotted as long as that shot is preceded by 4 other shots.

Which is definitionally not being one-shotted.


----------



## Storm-Bringer (Apr 22, 2008)

Emirikol said:
			
		

> The only thing that bugs me about the bard..errrrr' Warlord is that described, he's a leader.  Most of us will take that to be just that..but the IDIOTS in our hobby will take that as an excuse to boss other players (not PC's..actual players) around and tell them how to run their characters.
> 
> jh



I think they addressed that in an earlier article about the warlord.  I am sure the previously mentioned squirt gun training tool was advised.


----------



## Sir Sebastian Hardin (Apr 22, 2008)

Sir Sebastian Hardin said:
			
		

> Sorry for this offtopic but...
> Can anyone copy/paste the text ofthearticle here please? I'm in a PC of my college and I can't enter wizards' web in this PC.




I guess not...


----------



## Storm-Bringer (Apr 22, 2008)

Lacyon said:
			
		

> You have a small in-battle safety net in the form of Second Wind. Some characters can make that a bigger in-battle safety net in the form of Healing Words or Laying on Hands or whatever. But _those run out well before healing surges do!_



Which is why you don't use them until the healing surges are nearly or completely gone.  The same way no one blows all their dailies on the first pack of kobolds of the morning.



> Yes. You are in danger of being one-shotted as long as that shot is preceded by 4 other shots.
> 
> Which is definitionally not being one-shotted.



Which is why I put it in quotes.  It's the same situation as one hit-one kill, just later in the day.  That is the point when you have to be careful and marshal your resources.  Before that, you are just siphoning off your 'reserve hit points' until those are gone.

And again, this appears to be more of a play issue than a rules issue.  If encounters are not survivable, it is probably time to open a dialogue with the DM and discuss throttling back on fighting packs of orcs at first level.


----------



## abyssaldeath (Apr 22, 2008)

You only get 1 healing-surge per encounter as far as I know. Also, the "healers" only have a limited amount of healing per encounter as well. I have yet to see anything that suggests that there is a ton of healing per encounter as you seem to be eluding.


----------



## JohnSnow (Apr 22, 2008)

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> Which is why you don't use them until the healing surges are nearly or completely gone.  The same way no one blows all their dailies on the first pack of kobolds of the morning.




Umm...I think you misunderstand how it works. Second Wind represents your ability to use a healing surge mid-combat. It doesn't matter if it's the first combat of the day, the second, or the eighth. Similarly, healing word uses up one of your surges (although the cleric also adds some extra oomph to its effectiveness).

As an example, a fighter could be reduced to bloodied, use his second wind, and then later in the same combat, fall to 0 hp. He runs a risk of dying if this situation takes place. This can happen in the first combat of the day. Assuming he _doesn't_ die, when the combat is over, he can use his other healing surges to return to full health. Three or four would probably do it.

You're taking the assumption that each encounter is a 3e style encounter that nickel and dimes the players down, requiring them to use surges to recover to full hit points, but doesn't actually put them in threat of death.



			
				Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> Which is why I put it in quotes.  It's the same situation as one hit-one kill, just later in the day.  That is the point when you have to be careful and marshal your resources.  Before that, you are just siphoning off your 'reserve hit points' until those are gone.
> 
> And again, this appears to be more of a play issue than a rules issue.  If encounters are not survivable, it is probably time to open a dialogue with the DM and discuss throttling back on fighting packs of orcs at first level.




Again, you're assuming that in all the earlier battles, the character never gets near 0 hit points. If you want to play that way, that's fine, and you are correct that the problem has only been postponed. But that's not the only way to play with the 4e rules.

In a 3e-style attrition adventure, where only every fourth fight is actually dangerous, you are correct that all you've done is created a situation where the PC has 3-4 times as many hit points.  However, that's not how Fourth Edition adventures are intended to work.

With Fourth Edition, the PCs can face 3-4 battles that are as exciting as that climactic encounter in 3e before they have to rest. Or, for a little variety, you can have two of those set-piece battles interspersed with 4 other attrition-style encounters to mix things up. The difference here is that if you simply triple the number of hit points, the only encounter that has an actual risk of death or loss is the last one. Which means you've made the others as meaningless as they were when you had 1/3 of the hit points.

Do you see the difference?


----------



## Spatula (Apr 22, 2008)

DandD said:
			
		

> That's just bothersome due to ham-fisted re-calculations. Slows down combat in a terrible way, as the one getting negative levels needs to recalculate everything again and so wastes time for everybody, and additionally grinds the game to a halt, where all excitement is killed.



How does a -1 per neg. lvl on all actions grind the game to a halt?


----------



## Spatula (Apr 22, 2008)

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> Except they aren't really, until they are out of healing surges.  As long as they have available healing surges (or second wind, or the warlord, or the cleric, etc), then they really aren't in _danger_.  You have a safety net.



You can only use one surge per fight, under your own power (your second wind).  Healers can trigger the use of more surges, but those abilities are likewise going to be limited on a per-fight basis. (aside from the paladin's lay on hands, which seems to be per day instead, oddly enough)


----------



## ThirdWizard (Apr 22, 2008)

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> Which is why you don't use them until the healing surges are nearly or completely gone.  The same way no one blows all their dailies on the first pack of kobolds of the morning.




I think you don't quite understand how Healing Surge and Second Wind operate.

Here's an example. The fighter has 11 Healing Surges per day. He can use Second Wind to regain 1/4 his hp, but _only once per encounter_. So in the first combat, he can use a Second Wind to regain 1/4 his hp, then not again for the rest of the encounter. Then during the next combat he can do it again. And again in the next.

But, he can never use it twice per encounter (barring special abilities we aren't aware of.)

So, there is no reason not to use those Second Winds. And there is no way for the fighter to make use of a healing surge in combat without using Second Wind by himself. This means the fighter has a long term resource he can use throughout the day, but the mechanics keep him from expending them all at once.

This gives the game the ability to challenge the PCs multiple times a day without forcing a slow attrition of resources. You don't have the situation where you have to force them to use their healing up so that that 4th encounter is difficult. It's built into the system that _every_ combat is as difficult as that "4th encounter" from prevous editions.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Apr 22, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> How does a -1 per neg. lvl on all actions grind the game to a halt?




Spellcasters.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Apr 23, 2008)

IMO removing the hard coupling between party viability and the Cleric class was not a good thing, but a _great_ thing.  Kudos to 3e.

But we did have some new issues as a result.  Besides the problematic Heal spell, any damage less death that was not an obnoxious and tenacious condition modifier devolved into a few coin.

Lose 50 HP?  Spend 90 gp of CLW wand.  Lose 100 HP?  Spend 180 gp of CLW wand.  Lose 7 Str point?  Spend 90 gp from a wand.  Lose 2 level?  Same story (once you get up in levels).

Healing Surges give us the best of both worlds.  Each PC has his own fairly competent Cleric at his side -- Himself, without the PitA aspects of the full Cleric class.


----------



## hong (Apr 23, 2008)

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> Except they aren't really, until they are out of healing surges.  As long as they have available healing surges (or second wind, or the warlord, or the cleric, etc), then they really aren't in _danger_.  You have a safety net.




A safety net while doing acrobatics is not the same as not doing acrobatics.


----------



## pukunui (Apr 23, 2008)

I like the concept (although I don't think I'd ever play one myself) but I don't like the name. "Warlord", with all its connotations of power, authority, and army commander (not to mention thug ... aren't the tribal leaders who control a good chunk of Afghanistan also called "warlords"?) would have been more appropriate as the name of a martial paragon path that actually granted the implied power and authority and so on as class abilities.

That aside, the name "warlord" is simply a misnomer because this class, judging from its description and abilities, is much more about strategy and tactics than about power and authority and controlling others. I'm definitely going to allow this class in my game, but if I can think of a name that says "Tactician" rather than "Army Commander", I'll use that instead.


----------



## Spatula (Apr 23, 2008)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Spellcasters.



Non-spontaneous spellcasters, and only if you pay attention to the "random" part about losing spells.  Me, I'm fine with the player picking which spells they lose.  "You get hit with 5 negative levels.  Lose 25 hp and your 5 highest level spells."  Spontaneous casters are, of course, trivial.


----------



## Storm-Bringer (Apr 23, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Umm...I think you misunderstand how it works. Second Wind represents your ability to use a healing surge mid-combat. It doesn't matter if it's the first combat of the day, the second, or the eighth. Similarly, healing word uses up one of your surges (although the cleric also adds some extra oomph to its effectiveness).



As well as the paladin and the warlord.  I assume it won't be low level, but I do recall certain powers of the leaders will trigger a healing surge on a successful attack.  With recent excerpts, that may end up being a healing surge with a bonus on a hit, and just a healing surge on a miss.



> As an example, a fighter could be reduced to bloodied, use his second wind, and then later in the same combat, fall to 0 hp. He runs a risk of dying if this situation takes place. This can happen in the first combat of the day. Assuming he _doesn't_ die, when the combat is over, he can use his other healing surges to return to full health. Three or four would probably do it.



Which only replaces the perceived 'need a cleric' problem.  It only spreads out the 'needs constant healing' problem people keep describing.



> You're taking the assumption that each encounter is a 3e style encounter that nickel and dimes the players down, requiring them to use surges to recover to full hit points, but doesn't actually put them in threat of death.



From the damage listings I have seen, it appears that damage has been lowered in many cases, replaced with an effect of some kind.



> Again, you're assuming that in all the earlier battles, the character never gets near 0 hit points. If you want to play that way, that's fine, and you are correct that the problem has only been postponed. But that's not the only way to play with the 4e rules.



Nor is it the only way to play with the 3.x rules (or any previous version).  Also, I am not assuming anything about any previous battle.



> In a 3e-style attrition adventure, where only every fourth fight is actually dangerous, you are correct that all you've done is created a situation where the PC has 3-4 times as many hit points.  However, that's not how Fourth Edition adventures are intended to work.
> 
> With Fourth Edition, the PCs can face 3-4 battles that are as exciting as that climactic encounter in 3e before they have to rest. Or, for a little variety, you can have two of those set-piece battles interspersed with 4 other attrition-style encounters to mix things up. The difference here is that if you simply triple the number of hit points, the only encounter that has an actual risk of death or loss is the last one. Which means you've made the others as meaningless as they were when you had 1/3 of the hit points.
> 
> Do you see the difference?



No, because you essentially described the same thing twice.

3.x:  3-4 battles (with healing) before it's dangerous (need major healing or rest)
4e:  3-4 battles (with healing during or between) before it's dangerous (need to rest)

In fact, the way most people describe it, the 4e line is exactly how they do things in 3.x now.  Wands of Cure Light Wounds, scrolls, potions, various spells, and so on.  So, the healing has been re-distributed from clerics and magic items to healing surges.  I am assuming there will be healing items in 4e, so those should still be in play.  No functional difference, just a re-distribution of where the healing comes from.

The problem they are 'solving' isn't some issue of player control or lack of healing.  The only issue this addresses is 'need a cleric'.  Since I see that as an issue with play and not the rules, I don't see a net gain here.


----------



## bramadan (Apr 23, 2008)

I think what people are attempting to say is that the introduction of per-encounter mechanic makes for the more suspenseful encounters while still allowing the adventuring "day" to contain more then one encounter.

In 3.x encounter either uses up all the non-renewable resources (spells etc) in which case day ends or is not "dangerous" in a sense that PCs have a choice of expanding more resources.
In 4, encounter can use all the "encounter" resources thus becoming quite dangerous while still allowing any number of such encounters during the course of adventuring day. 

Daily resources return some degree of resource-management into the picture while still allowing for the quicker regeneration of resources (and thus more suspenseful adventuring). 

The problem that is solved by this is the dilemma faced by the DM between "5-minute adventuring day" if the encounters push the party to their limit, and the "only every 4th encounter really counts" if the encounters deplete only fraction of party resources each.


----------



## JohnSnow (Apr 23, 2008)

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> No, because you essentially described the same thing twice.
> 
> 3.x:  3-4 battles (with healing) before it's dangerous (need major healing or rest)
> 4e:  3-4 battles (with healing during or between) before it's dangerous (need to rest)
> ...




I'll try this once more. Your understanding of the way 3e works is incorrect. In 3e, there is no limit to the amount of healing that can be applied to the character in a single fight. A party with a Wand of Cure Light Wounds, or an arsenal of healing potions sufficient to sustain them for an entire day is in _no danger_ of having a character die in a fight *unless* that fight is either:

A) The last fight in a series of depletion encounters, or;
B) A single, climactic battle intended to be the party's only contest that day.

By contrast, a Fourth Edition party in _any given fight_ has precisely their full hit point totals, their second winds, and whatever minor in-combat healing the leaders (and the paladin) bring to the party. That means that there is a chance (not high but it exists) of a character actually dying in one of the fights. However, if the party survives, that doesn't have to be their only encounter that day. Based on the number of healing surges most characters have, they can probably fight 3-4 of these types of fights before having to rest.



			
				Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> Wands of Cure Light Wounds, scrolls, potions, various spells, and so on.  So, the healing has been re-distributed from clerics and magic items to healing surges.  I am assuming there will be healing items in 4e, so those should still be in play.  No functional difference, just a re-distribution of where the healing comes from.
> 
> The problem they are 'solving' isn't some issue of player control or lack of healing.  The only issue this addresses is 'need a cleric'.  Since I see that as an issue with play and not the rules, I don't see a net gain here.




If you don't see "need a cleric" as an issue with the rules, you obviously have a very different definition of "the rules" than I do.

Moreover, as I point out above, the shift in 4e seems to have addressed the earlier paradigm of either "only every fourth encounter is dangerous" or "the characters can handle only 1 dangerous encounter per day." I recognize that if magic items can be used multiple times in the space of an encounter, we're right back to the same problem as before. Furthermore, it is my belief that charged items (like 3e wands) are history and that there is probably a hard limit to the number of potions a character can benefit from in a short period of time.

If, after this explanation, you still don't see the difference, I think someone else may need to take a crack at explaining it. Because I can't think of how to explain it better. The distinction is pretty self-evident to me.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Apr 23, 2008)

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> 3.x:  3-4 battles (with healing) before it's dangerous (need major healing or rest)
> 4e:  3-4 battles (with healing during or between) before it's dangerous (need to rest)




Not at all. You have the same resources available in the 1st encounter as you do in the 4th in 4E. Why? Because in the first encounter, you have 11 healing surges, sure, but you can only use one for Second Wind and the cleric can heal you twice for three total chances to heal. In the 4th encounter, you probably have 4 or so healing surges left, but the way things work, it still means 3 heals.

In both 3rd and 4th edition, when you run out of cure spells / healing surges you _rest_! Nobody says "Gee, we're out of _heal_ spells, but we can push on one more combat." No. You can't. You'll die. In 4e when you have no healing surges left, you rest as well.

BUT!!! There's a difference. That first encounter? Yeah, you could only get healed 3 times max (and that's 1 per person + 2, not 3 per person!). It doesn't matter that its the first combat. You're limited in how many times you can regain hit points. So, in that fourth, fifth, sixth, or whatever encounter of the day? You have the same healing capacity as you did for the first encounter.

What does this mean? It means a _lot_.

For one, it means that the first encounter can be just as challenging as the last.
Second, it means that the battles don't have to deplete resources to become difficult.
Third it means that you have more incentive to keep going since you can't blow your healing in the first (or subsequent) combat.
Fourth, it means that encounters can be built without having to worry about whether it is the PCs' 1st, 2nd, etc. combat.

I'm sure there are more that could be listed, but that's a quick summary of why 4e is so much better when it comes to healing than 3e. And, this is a huge boon to the game, making encounter design easier, making combat more interesting, and making the DM's life, generally, less stressful. At least it will for me, after having come from playing lots of high level 3e games.


----------



## hong (Apr 23, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> I'll try this once more. Your understanding of the way 3e works is incorrect. In 3e, there is no limit to the amount of healing that can be applied to the character in a single fight. A party with a Wand of Cure Light Wounds, or an arsenal of healing potions sufficient to sustain them for an entire day is in _no danger_ of having a character die in a fight *unless* that fight is either:
> 
> A) The last fight in a series of depletion encounters, or;
> B) A single, climactic battle intended to be the party's only contest that day.




Well, not quite. You have total healing, and you have rate of damage removal per round. If all the healing you have is 1 CLW spell per round, whether from wand, potion or caster, then a monster that does 30 pts damage per round can easily kill someone. So you can have lots of healing potential, but still the risk of death.

I'm still not entirely sold on healing surges as the only healing mechanic. It was said in another thread first, but this basically means that healing is siloed per character. As soon as one guy is out of surges, you camp for the day.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Apr 23, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> I'm still not entirely sold on healing surges as the only healing mechanic. It was said in another thread first, but this basically means that healing is siloed per character. As soon as one guy is out of surges, you camp for the day.



Well we know some healing-powers can take away from the healer's Healing Surges. There is also all the talk about other ways of healing like Regeneration and such in the Tier article so I think we shall have some variety.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Apr 23, 2008)

Don't forget that this very warlord article shows an ability that heals allies when they use an Action Point. Not to mention the temporary hp abilities we've seen.


----------



## small pumpkin man (Apr 23, 2008)

From the Tiers article 

-Heroic "Since they rely on healing surges to regain lost hit points, heroic tier characters are likely to take an extended rest when surges get dangerously low."

-Paragon "They also have ways to regain hit points beyond healing surges, including regeneration, so they can complete more encounters between extended rests. On the other hand, monsters at the paragon tier have more ways to thwart these new capabilities..." (it may be refering to other Paragon abilities, not healing, when talking about the thwarting)

-Epic "Epic adventurers have even more ways to recover expended powers, more ways to heal damage without relying on healing surges ... [also] can last through many encounters before resting and can even return from death in the middle of a fight.


----------



## Alkiera (Apr 23, 2008)

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> (snip)
> 
> 3.x:  3-4 battles (with healing) before it's dangerous (need major healing or rest)
> 4e:  3-4 battles (with healing during or between) before it's dangerous (need to rest)
> ...




Your interpretation of 4E up there is incorrect.  Suppose classic fighter/cleric/rogue/wizard party.

4e: 3-4 battles (with some healing) all of which are dangerous.  You can't access all of your healing in every combat;  You might have 11 healing surges/day, but only be able to use a few in any given encounter.  Being in an encounter where you've used healing surge, the cleric has used his healing words for the encounter, and the baddies are still up, means you are in big danger of dying.  No matter how many healing surges you've got stored up, you can't use them until your 5 minute rest AFTER the encounter.  Effectively, you've run out of heals, and might die.

If you manage to defeat that encounter, you and your party sit down and rest for 5 minutes.  You burn a few healing surges, cleric gets back his encounter powers, etc.  Then, in the next encounter, you can have the exact same situation.  Get hit, use Second Wind.  Get hurt more, get healed 2x by the cleric.  Now there's no more healing for you in this fight.  You still have healing surges, but YOU CAN'T SPEND THEM.  Not until you defeat the encounter and rest.

At that point, you may well be out of healing surges, or might have one more easy fight in you, depending on how things went.  At any rate, you are in danger of death in both fights, not just the last one.  Heck, in the last, you still have some healing surges available... you just are out of per-encounter abilities that would let you use them.


----------



## That One Guy (Apr 23, 2008)

Sir Sebastian Hardin said:
			
		

> Sorry for this offtopic but...
> Can someone copy/paste the text here please? I'm in a PC of my college and I can't enter wizards' web in this PC.




(And testing spoiler tag...) (It also occurs to me that I don't know the max number of characters per post...)
[sblock]It wasn’t easy to choose the classes to appear in the Player’s Handbook. Many conflicting objectives affected these decisions—for example, we wanted to include multiple builds so that there would be a number of different ways to create, for example, a fighter… but doing so took up more space for each single class description, and that meant fewer classes could fit into the Player’s Handbook. Similarly, we wanted to reproduce popular classes from 3rd Edition as quickly as possible, so that players engaged in ongoing games could convert easily… but we also thought it would be highly desirable to show off new classes that might give an experienced player a chance to try out something he or she had never seen before.

This last point is one of the reasons why the warlord is in the new Player’s Handbook. Just as 3rd Edition introduced the sorcerer (and re-introduced the barbarian) up front, we felt that 4th Edition should introduce one or two classes that weren’t previously part of the core D&D experience.

The warlord first appeared in our second design draft of 4th Edition as the marshal. Those of you familiar with the 3rd Edition Miniatures Handbook might remember this class. (You might also wonder why we changed the name from marshal to warlord. The answer is that we wanted to broaden the concept from a medieval military commander to someone who might be a barbaric warchief, an elven marchwarden, or a noble-born knight-commander.) Of course, the 4E version was only loosely based on the 3E version; among other things, the new marshal has access to the same sort of power selection as any other 4E class, instead of a boatload of auras. It was also moved more clearly into the Leader role, while the 3E marshal was a class that fell “in between” roles, and certainly couldn’t replace a cleric or a fighter in the typical party mix.

The 4E warlord now helps alleviate that unfortunate requirement of party composition in all previous editions of Dungeons & Dragons: before, a party had to include a cleric in order to be effective. Very early on in 4th Edition design, our work on character roles led us to the idea that any character serving as the party’s “cleric”—whether a bard, shaman, warlord, or whatever—needed to be as good at that job as the cleric or else we’d have yet another edition of D&D in which every party still needed a cleric. That led us to the idea of the Leader role, and the warlord as just one of several possible classes that can fill this role. Of course, the warlord fills it in his own unique way, with powers that have a strong flavor of clever tactics and heroic inspiration. Read on a bit, and you’ll see for yourself!
--Rich Baker

“Onward to victory! They cannot stand before us!”

Warlords are accomplished and competent battle leaders. Warlords stand on the front line issuing commands and bolstering their allies while leading the battle with weapon in hand. Warlords know how to rally a team to win a fight.

Your ability to lead others to victory is a direct result of your history. You could be a minor warchief looking to make a name for yourself, a pious knight-commander on leave from your militant order, a youthful noble eager to apply years of training to life outside the castle walls, a calculating mercenary captain, or a courageous marshal of the borderlands who fights to protect the frontier. Regardless of your background, you are a skillful warrior with an uncanny gift for leadership.

The weight of your armor is not a hindrance; it is a familiar comfort. The worn weapon grip molds to your hand as if it were a natural extension of your arm. It’s time to fight and to lead.
Class Traits

Role: Leader. You are an inspiring commander and a master of battle tactics.
Power Source: Martial. You have become an expert in tactics through endless hours of training and practice, personal determination, and your own sheer physical toughness.
Key Abilities: Strength, Intelligence, Charisma

Armor Proficiencies: Cloth, leather, hide, chainmail; light shield
Weapon Proficiencies: Simple melee, military melee, simple ranged
Bonus to Defense: +1 Fortitude, +1 Will

Hit Points at 1st Level: 12 + Constitution score
Hit Points per Level Gained: 5
Healing Surges per Day: 7 + Constitution modifier

Trained Skills: From the class skills list below, choose four trained skills at 1st level.
Class Skills: Athletics (Str), Diplomacy (Cha), Endurance (Con), Heal (Wis), History (Int), Intimidate (Cha)

Build Options: Inspiring warlord, tactical warlord
Class Features: Combat Leader, Commanding Presence, inspiring word
Warlord Class Features

All warlords have these class features.

Combat Leader
You and each ally within 10 squares who can see and hear you gain a +2 power bonus to initiative.

Commanding Presence
Choose one of the following two benefits.

Inspiring Presence: When an ally who can see you spends an action point to take an extra action, that ally also regains lost hit points equal to one-half your level + your Charisma modifier.

Tactical Presence: When an ally you can see spends an action point to make an extra attack, the ally gains a bonus to the attack roll equal to one-half your Intelligence modifier.

The choice you make also provides bonuses to certain warlord powers. Individual powers detail the effects (if any) your Commanding Presence selection has on them.

Inspiring Word
Using the inspiring word power, warlords can grant their comrades additional resilience with nothing more than a shout of encouragement.

Warlord Overview

Characteristics: You are a strong warrior in melee, able to stand beside the fighter or paladin in your party. Your powers grant allies immediate actions (usually moves or attacks), provide bonuses to attack or defense, and grant healing in the midst of battle.

Religion: Warlords favor martial gods such as Bahamut and Kord, and those who have a particular eye for strategy or leadership esteem Ioun or Erathis. Evil and unaligned warlords often worship Bane.

Races: Dragonborn make excellent inspiring warlords, and half-elves are equally inspiring leaders. Eladrin are skilled tactical warlords. Tiefling warlords are versatile, combining powers from both builds, and humans can excel at either path.

Creating a Warlord

The two warlord builds are inspiring warlord and tactical warlord. Some warlords lean more on their Charisma, while others rely on Intelligence, but Strength is important to every warlord.

Inspiring Warlord
You lead by exhortation, encouragement, and inspiration. Your powers help your allies find new surges of courage and endurance within themselves, helping them heal, shrug off debilitating conditions, and defend themselves from attack. Your attack powers rely on Strength, so that should be your best ability score. The benefits you give your allies, though, depend almost entirely on Charisma, so make that second best. Intelligence is your best third choice, so you can dabble in other warlord powers and to help your Reflex defense. Select powers that make the best use of your high Charisma score.

    Suggested Feat: Inspired Recovery (Human feat: Toughness)
    Suggested Skills: Athletics, Diplomacy, Heal, History
    Suggested At-Will Powers: commander’s strike, furious smash
    Suggested Encounter Power: guarding attack
    Suggested Daily Power: bastion of defense

    Guarding Attack
    Warlord Attack 1
    With a calculated strike, you knock your adversary off balance and grant your comrade-in-arms some protection against the villain’s attacks.
    Encounter Martial, Weapon
    Standard Action Melee weapon
    Target: One creature
    Attack: Strength vs. AC
    Hit: 2[W] + Strength modifier damage. Until the end of your next turn, one ally adjacent to either you or the target gains a +2 power bonus to AC against the target’s attacks.
    Inspiring Presence: The power bonus to AC equals 1 + your Charisma modifier.

    Bastion of Defense
    Warlord Attack 1
    Honorable warriors never fall!
    Daily Martial, Weapon
    Standard Action Melee weapon
    Target: One creature
    Attack: Strength vs. AC
    Hit: 3[W] + Strength modifier damage. Allies within 5 squares of you gain a +1 power bonus to all defenses until the end of the encounter.
    Effect: Allies within 5 squares of you gain temporary hit points equal to 5 + your Charisma modifier.

Tactical Warlord
Your leadership takes the form of quick commands, cunning strategies, and tactical superiority. Your powers guide your allies to extra and more powerful attacks, as well as helping them move quickly in combat situations. You also assist your allies by moving your enemies around or knocking them prone. You use Strength for your attack powers, so make that your best ability score. Intelligence is secondary, because your Intelligence determines just how effective a leader you are. Charisma should be your third best score, so you can dabble in other warlord powers and to improve your Will defense. Select powers that make the best use of your high Intelligence score.

    Suggested Feat: Tactical Assault (Human feat: Weapon Focus)
    Suggested Skills: Endurance, Heal, History, Intimidate
    Suggested At-Will Powers: viper’s strike, wolf pack tactics
    Suggested Encounter Power: warlord’s favor
    Suggested Daily Power: lead the attack

    Warlord’s Favor
    Warlord Attack 1
    With a calculated blow, you leave your adversary exposed to an imminent attack from one of your closest allies.
    Encounter Martial, Weapon
    Standard Action Melee weapon
    Target: One creature
    Attack: Strength vs. AC
    Hit: 2[W] + Strength modifier damage. One ally within 5 squares of you gains a +2 power bonus to attack rolls against the target until the end of your next turn.
    Tactical Presence: The bonus to attack rolls that you grant equals 1 + your Intelligence modifier.

    Lead the Attack
    Warlord Attack 1
    Under your direction, arrows hit their marks and blades drive home.
    Daily Martial, Weapon
    Standard Action Melee weapon
    Target: One creature
    Attack: Strength vs. AC
    Hit: 3[W] + Strength modifier damage. Until the end of the encounter, you and each ally within 5 squares of you gain a power bonus to attack rolls against the target equal to 1 + your Intelligence modifier.
    Miss: Until the end of the encounter, you and each ally within 5 squares of you gain a +1 power bonus to attack rolls against the target.

[/sblock]
*Is that how it's supposed to work? **Yay!
...is it just blocked by the school server? Also, thanks Caliber for the answer in regards to the old school. It clears something up for me.


----------

