Excerpt: The Warlord

[Kordeth]

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]

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]

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.

“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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.