Mike Mearls Happy Fun Hour: The Warlord

[iserith]

What? No, Godzilla was a nominally unintended consequence of trying to address a symptom "no one wants to play the cleric," of the problem.

Well, part of one of the problems.

4e wasn't open source so you can't just paste it up on line.

If it will help the discussion, I might be able to throw together a Warlord PC and post it. I still have the official 4e character builder subscription. If it will help, let me know what you want made and I'll try to get it posted by tonight.

 

[Tony Vargas]

A person knows magic. It doesnt mean the person is necessarily a wizard. Might be a bard, psion, druid, sorcerer, warlock, cleric, or other class.

A person knows how to fight. It shouldnt be that fighter is the only possibility. At least there is rogue.

Martial classes need more diversity.

My though, as I was trying to get across in my Wall of Text post, was that's actually kinda a blind alley and why it's been so hard to make the fighter viable in D&D for so long. I point to the introduction of the Thief in Greyhawk as the genesis of the whole thing. The way I put it succinctly is that you could combine the Fighting Man & Thief, or, today, the Fighter & Rogue, into a single class - just give it all of eachother's non-redundant features (and, yes, Extra Attack & SA are obviously redundant DPR-generators) - and the result would be in no way overpowered or overshadowing, and it would better model characters from genre. But, it seems unthinkable to give up either class, and since both are so narrow in their abilities, they both remain non-to-barely viable choices, and road-blocks to creating anything better. Instead, things the 'fighter' should be doing get increasingly diced, broken out, and/or specialized in sub-class, feats, builds, PrCs, alternate classes, or whatever (even magic items have been used to inject perfectly reasonable martial abilities - like standing up quickly, any stunt man IRL can do it, but it took 'Acrobat Boots' in 4e, wtf?). Heck, as much as I like what 4e did with the Martial source, 'marital' itself, is unduly narrow. There's more to a hero in the fantasy genre than just fighting skill.

And, again, that's not the whole of it, there's other factors, other early decisions that have gotten propagated and calcified for decades into unshakeable dogma - often while, simultaneously, the underlying game-design reasons for them were undermined. For instance, in the early game, the Fighter & Cleric's ability to wear heavy armor was a huge deal, the AC gap between a guy in a robe or leather when everyone had random-rolled 3d6 DEX and the one in platemail & shield was huge. Ever since 3e, with high stats expected, DEX bonus to AC limited by heavy armor, and any class that didn't get such armor getting spells and features to give it competitive AC, heavy armor has been little more than cosmetic - sometimes even a distinct disadvantage.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

My though, as I was trying to get across in my Wall of Text post, was that's actually kinda a blind alley and why it's been so hard to make the fighter viable in D&D for so long. I point to the introduction of the Thief in Greyhawk as the genesis of the whole thing. The way I put it succinctly is that you could combine the Fighting Man & Thief, or, today, the Fighter & Rogue, into a single class - just give it all of eachother's non-redundant features (and, yes, Extra Attack & SA are obviously redundant DPR-generators) - and the result would be in no way overpowered or overshadowing, and it would better model characters from genre. But, it seems unthinkable to give up either class, and since both are so narrow in their abilities, they both remain non-to-barely viable choices, and road-blocks to creating anything better. Instead, things the 'fighter' should be doing get increasingly diced, broken out, and/or specialized in sub-class, feats, builds, PrCs, alternate classes, or whatever (even magic items have been used to inject perfectly reasonable martial abilities - like standing up quickly, any stunt man IRL can do it, but it took 'Acrobat Boots' in 4e, wtf?). Heck, as much as I like what 4e did with the Martial source, 'marital' itself, is unduly narrow. There's more to a hero in the fantasy genre than just fighting skill.

And, again, that's not the whole of it, there's other factors, other early decisions that have gotten propagated and calcified for decades into unshakeable dogma - often while, simultaneously, the underlying game-design reasons for them were undermined. For instance, in the early game, the Fighter & Cleric's ability to wear heavy armor was a huge deal, the AC gap between a guy in a robe or leather when everyone had random-rolled 3d6 DEX and the one in platemail & shield was huge. Ever since 3e, with high stats expected, DEX bonus to AC limited by heavy armor, and any class that didn't get such armor getting spells and features to give it competitive AC, heavy armor has been little more than cosmetic - sometimes even a distinct disadvantage.

Which begs the question:

If you believe that D&D is systemically broken, why are you playing it?

 

[Zardnaar]

My though, as I was trying to get across in my Wall of Text post, was that's actually kinda a blind alley and why it's been so hard to make the fighter viable in D&D for so long. I point to the introduction of the Thief in Greyhawk as the genesis of the whole thing. The way I put it succinctly is that you could combine the Fighting Man & Thief, or, today, the Fighter & Rogue, into a single class - just give it all of eachother's non-redundant features (and, yes, Extra Attack & SA are obviously redundant DPR-generators) - and the result would be in no way overpowered or overshadowing, and it would better model characters from genre. But, it seems unthinkable to give up either class, and since both are so narrow in their abilities, they both remain non-to-barely viable choices, and road-blocks to creating anything better. Instead, things the 'fighter' should be doing get increasingly diced, broken out, and/or specialized in sub-class, feats, builds, PrCs, alternate classes, or whatever (even magic items have been used to inject perfectly reasonable martial abilities - like standing up quickly, any stunt man IRL can do it, but it took 'Acrobat Boots' in 4e, wtf?). Heck, as much as I like what 4e did with the Martial source, 'marital' itself, is unduly narrow. There's more to a hero in the fantasy genre than just fighting skill.

And, again, that's not the whole of it, there's other factors, other early decisions that have gotten propagated and calcified for decades into unshakeable dogma - often while, simultaneously, the underlying game-design reasons for them were undermined. For instance, in the early game, the Fighter & Cleric's ability to wear heavy armor was a huge deal, the AC gap between a guy in a robe or leather when everyone had random-rolled 3d6 DEX and the one in platemail & shield was huge. Ever since 3e, with high stats expected, DEX bonus to AC limited by heavy armor, and any class that didn't get such armor getting spells and features to give it competitive AC, heavy armor has been little more than cosmetic - sometimes even a distinct disadvantage.

There is a reason for that its D&D.

You could go and create a clone like Gold and Glory for 2E. Call it Warlords and Wizzies or perhaps Powers and Warlords and put it on kickstarter. I'm sure all those disaffected 4E fans who love the warlord so much will support your idea. Make is a bit OSR looking to get around the GSL, warlords can level up like Thieves and you can double the xp requirements for wizards.

Instead of 1gp=1xp you could give xp for using healing surges. Instead of paying tribute to Gygax you ca drool all over Tweet. Go for it I am sure you will get at least 3 backers 4 on a good day.

 

[Tony Vargas]

There is a reason for that its D&D.

Yep. Lots of smart or talented or just determined folks have looked at D&D, seen (some or even all) of what was wrong with it, and published their improved versions. "Fantasy Heartbreakers" Heinsoo & Tweet called 'em.
They've never made a ripple in the market. Because only D&D (and, OK, now PF) is D&D.

If you believe that D&D is systemically broken, why are you playing it?

It was the first RPG, and my entry to the hobby. I love the game. Seeing some of it's faults and how deeply rooted they are in its history doesn't change that.

 

[Zardnaar]

Yep. Lots of smart or talented or just determined folks have looked at D&D, seen (some or even all) of what was wrong with it, and published their improved versions. "Fantasy Heartbreakers" Heinsoo & Tweet called 'em.
They've never made a ripple in the market. Because only D&D (and, OK, now PF) is D&D.

It was the first RPG, and my entry to the hobby. I love the game. Seeing some of it's faults and how deeply rooted they are in its history doesn't change that.

I think balance in D&D kind of was there around 1995 and if you use say Skills and Power correctly you can pull it off. The OSR Rogue needs a bit of a rewrite the 3E one is probably fine in AD&D.

Martial healing also existed as you got 1 hp/day 2 if you had a healer in the group, 3 with healer+ bed rest.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Martial healing also existed as you got 1 hp/day 2 if you had a healer in the group, 3 with healer+ bed rest.

Not really 'martial,' literally of course (it's rest & care, nothing to do with war & warriors). But, yeah, that rings a bell, I'd forgotten about that. But, 1 hp/day, or 3/day, it's still pretty trivial compared to the cleric just re-memorizing a full slate of Cure..Wounds spells overnight.

 

[outsider]

I think balance in D&D kind of was there around 1995 and if you use say Skills and Power correctly you can pull it off.

In Skills and Powers, Fighters had 15 points to buy their class abilities. Clerics had 125. Clerics could buy weapon specialization, fighter str/con, 1d10 hitpoints, an edged weapon if they wanted, and still have around 80 points to buy cleric spheres(that would get them around 8-10 spheres).

Skills and Powers very much maintained the casters are better status quo.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

It was the first RPG, and my entry to the hobby. I love the game. Seeing some of it's faults and how deeply rooted they are in its history doesn't change that.

For someone who says they love D&D despite all of the flaws it has, you sure do bring up those flaws a lot and say anybody who looks past them is dumb.

 

[TwoSix]

In Skills and Powers, Fighters had 15 points to buy their class abilities. Clerics had 125. Clerics could buy weapon specialization, fighter str/con, 1d10 hitpoints, an edged weapon if they wanted, and still have around 80 points to buy cleric spheres(that would get them around 8-10 spheres).

Skills and Powers very much maintained the casters are better status quo.

I will continue to maintain my stance that a party of entirely Skills & Powers clerics is one of the best D&D experiences possible. Outside of the abomination that was split stats, I loved that system.