new playtest report by Steve Winter

[TwinBahamut]

Or the end of the Karate Kid
Or any Rocky movie
Or actually, any sports movie ever

I think the lesson here is Warlord = sports coach.

That didn't really follow, did it? Well, I stand behind it anyway.

I did say it was a "classic" moment for a reason. It happens in all kinds of movies and TV shows, really.

Also, I think the anecdote of the Civil War general who convinced a fallen man to stand up and fight (and then promptly die from his lethal injury a few steps later) with the words "You are hardly hurt at all!" is a great real world example.

Yep, the condition track and the bloodied state are a nice move away from the traditional hp system, without being to complicated or fussy.

My username is listed for that quote, but I am pretty sure I didn't write that... Maybe you should double-check that.

 

[Orius]

To be honest, I'm not really sure what the Warlord class is bringing to the table that's so special or unique. He's supposed to have the role of a battle leader, but how has this role not been suitably covered in the past by the Fighter, the Paladin, or even the Cleric? The Fighter and Paladin have the good combat abilities. The Paladin and Cleric heal. The Fighter and Cleric gained followers in the old editions, which was replaced with the Leadership feat in 3e. You want to boost the PC's morale? The Cleric can cast spells like bless, maybe you've got a Bard tagging along, or just expand the Leadership feat into a chain of feats that deal with party morale and followers. Right now, the Warlord just feels like a fifth wheel on the D&D wagon to me.

 

[Gloombunny]

To be honest, I'm not really sure what the Warlord class is bringing to the table that's so special or unique. He's supposed to have the role of a battle leader, but how has this role not been suitably covered in the past by the Fighter, the Paladin, or even the Cleric? The Fighter and Paladin have the good combat abilities. The Paladin and Cleric heal. The Fighter and Cleric gained followers in the old editions, which was replaced with the Leadership feat in 3e. You want to boost the PC's morale? The Cleric can cast spells like bless, maybe you've got a Bard tagging along, or just expand the Leadership feat into a chain of feats that deal with party morale and followers. Right now, the Warlord just feels like a fifth wheel on the D&D wagon to me.

It's there to provide some variety and flexibility. Sometimes no one in the group wants to play a cleric, so they've come up with a different class that accomplishes the same goals but in a different way, both mechanically and flavorwise. This way there's a higher chance someone in the group will be interested in at least one of the "leader" classes.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

To be honest, I'm not really sure what the Warlord class is bringing to the table that's so special or unique. He's supposed to have the role of a battle leader, but how has this role not been suitably covered in the past by the Fighter, the Paladin, or even the Cleric? The Fighter and Paladin have the good combat abilities. The Paladin and Cleric heal. The Fighter and Cleric gained followers in the old editions, which was replaced with the Leadership feat in 3e. You want to boost the PC's morale? The Cleric can cast spells like bless, maybe you've got a Bard tagging along, or just expand the Leadership feat into a chain of feats that deal with party morale and followers. Right now, the Warlord just feels like a fifth wheel on the D&D wagon to me.

Well, fighters have never been about "leading". They got followers, sure. However, they were not better at making those followers good at fighting than anyone else was. Their actual abilities were the ability to hit enemies with a weapon...hard.

Paladins could never really "lead". Well, they were better than fighters in that they could cast spells to make people better at hitting. But they got the ability to do it maybe once or twice a day even into really high levels(and the bonuses were so small that most people didn't notice). Mostly their role was to survive against almost anything really well and to smite evil enemies. Their healing ability was so poor as to not even count most of the time.

Clerics make pretty good leaders. Almost all their main abilities increase the stats, accuracy, damage, and effectiveness of other characters. They are the only battle leader in D&D until now.

Warlords are basically a cleric alternative. Although, I can see how you can differentiate the two classes. I think you'll see a Warlord with more abilities like "give an ally a free attack" and "let an ally ignore concealment for an attack" and "give combat advantage to an ally". Whereas a clerics powers will probably be more "I give you bonuses to your ac", "your weapon does more damage and is magical", and "we are all resistant to poison or fire"".

Both will do leader type things but in completely different ways.

 

[Plane Sailing]

When you are mortaly wounded (in 3e -1 hit point and dying) this is not a mere "getting stunned". In 4e, we have seen playtest reports where characters were close to the equivalent of -9 hit points. I have no problem with a bloodied character fighting. I have a problem with dying characters suddenly able to fight. It buggers me in 3e and it looks like it will bugger me in 4e.
Especialy if they have been "revived" by a a warlord shouting insults at them

You don't know this. You are jumping to conclusions which are unsupported. You don't know enough about how hit points are defined and about healing is defined in 4e, let alone being 'mortally wounded' (unless I missed that on the 4e news page - I don't think I did).

I understand that dying characters being able to leap up and suddenly fight jars against your suspension of disbelief (although this has been a factor of D&D since, well, the very first ever incarnation). The thing is, we already have many hints that (as people have already said in this thread) taking hit points damage is likely to be seen as a range of stuff, not just sword thrusts to the heart left right and centre.

Hopefully this will actually lead us to a much more 'realistic' view of combat, and to some extent answer the question about why a high level character can ignore a sword thrust that would eviscerate a neophyte commoner.

Cheers

 

[Plane Sailing]

To be honest, I'm not really sure what the Warlord class is bringing to the table that's so special or unique. He's supposed to have the role of a battle leader, but how has this role not been suitably covered in the past by the Fighter, the Paladin, or even the Cleric?

Think of him as an effective Bard, perhaps?

The Bard was a healer and party buffer, but has a lot of bad press behind him. So if you have a martially focussed healer and party buffer...

 

[SlimeGuru42]

I think something really important is being missed here.

"This wouldn't have been too bad except 1) both Bart's halfling warlock and Jeff's elf warlord were absent"

Two players down but going through the adventure as planned. The GM had the warlord pop in to save their bacon even though the warlord wasn't there. If the whole party had been there then the number of PC KOs would have likely been less, possibly zero.

 

[Lurker37]

What is more heroic :
* "Wolbur the warrior rises, fully healed, for the 3rd time, his blood and former internal organs littering the battlefield and finaly take down the blackguard" or
* "seeing her comrades uncouscious or uncapacited, Haldra the cleric feel a rush of anger, charges the blackguard, her forces decupled by the will to save her friends, and slay him with a surprinsingly strong hit" ?

First of all, forget the internal organs on the ground. We're talking about someone who was 'out of the fight' not 'dead and gruesomely disemboweled'.

Secondly, in a game with a second wind mechanic, and where fighters will apparently be able to use this mechanic more than other classes (note that this draws on 'martial' power, not magic), having a warlord able to inspire a similar sort of recovery in others doesn't seem out of place to me.

So, leaving the graphic hyperbole aside:

The second option is great for a book or a movie, where we are entertained by observing the battle.

It is, however, a steaming pile of crap for a gaming table, where every other player at the table just got rendered redundant by the bloody medic ( j/k ) pulling a scene-stealing move out of their rear end. At a gaming table we are entertained by participating. Anything that reduces opportunity to participate is bad. Look at the changes to save-or-die, petrification, paralysis, etc for other areas where the 4e devs appear to be getting this.

At a gaming table, you want option one. Every time. Option one makes two players feel more involved, the reviver and the revivee, while everyone else rejoices at their companion rejoining the fight. Option two is a moment of glory for one player, but leaves one player unable to act at all, and the others saying "Yes. Well, grats on the killing blow, but if he was that close to dropping then any two of us could have probably finished him off. Are you going to help our fallen companion, or were you planning on posing for a portrait while he bled to death?"

OK - now I'm guilty of hyperbole, but the fact remains that the option that allows more players to feel involved is the one that's better for the game in most cases.

 

[The Grackle]

Think of him as an effective Bard, perhaps?

And with platemail instead of a lute...

 

[small pumpkin man]

I did say it was a "classic" moment for a reason. It happens in all kinds of movies and TV shows, really.

Yeah, I was trying to back up your point that it was a common trope, in and out of movies, but I came off as a bit surly didn't I?

My username is listed for that quote, but I am pretty sure I didn't write that... Maybe you should double-check that.

Yeah, I've done that before, bad habit, sorry.

It was Fifth Element who said that.