Warlord - punished for sacraficing

[0-hr]

Thanks all for answering the question. I can see that the Warlord is an attempt to balance in-game game penalties with real-life personality benefits.
That's certainly the easiest way to design a game. I guess I had expected a little more.

 

[Nail]

I guess I had expected a little more.

Could you elaborate? FWIW, I'm interested to hear your perspective.

 

[Amphimir Míriel]

That's certainly the easiest way to design a game. I guess I had expected a little more.

Well, that's what we get for trying to be helpful...

 

[Vegepygmy]

I know some people enjoy “taking one for the team” and all that, but I ain't him and I also (as a DM) don't want to punish my players like that. In my book, it's just plain bad design.

I don't see how it's "bad design" to include an option for players who enjoy a non-standard style.

I've played a warlord, and I didn't feel like I was being "punished" at all.

 

[Whimsical]

The warlord class was made for me. WotC came together and decided to make a class just for Frank. I'm sorry that my class is taking up space in your PHB, but you don't have to play it if you don't want.

The fighter specializes in wielding a weapon.
The warlord specializes in wielding a party. My weapon is much bigger than yours.

I have always been more concerned about how the party performs than only just how I perform.

 

[0-hr]

Well, that's what we get for trying to be helpful...

You were helpful. Really. I didn't know if there was some underlying balance I wasn't seeing (I've just started really looking at the game) or if the mechanical penalties were actually supposed to be balanced by the thanks of the other players. Now I know. I disagree with the design decision, and it limits the classes I'll play in the game, but at least I know.

As for what I expected - I had thought the classes would be well balanced with respect to sacrafice (since they are apparently well balanced in other respects). So if the Warlord Presence ability uses up a class feature slot and does them no good, then the other classes should have something similar. The fighter's mark is a good example - it encourages the bad guys to attack the fighter. That's a fair trade for the benefits a Fighter may get from a Warlord. A Paladin's Lay on Hands fits into that mold too - helps others, not self. If every class had (exactly) one equivalent ability that only helped the group, then that would work out well and be balanced. The way it looks to me though is that the Warlord is a sucker class.

Yes, your friends will encourage you to play it, thank you profusely, and tell you what a great guy you are. Is that an equal trade for the loss of a major class feature? I don't think the two should even be in the same equation. As (I think it was) Monte once said about the 3rd Ed Paladin "Balancing mechanical benefits with role-playing restrictions (ie. the Code of Conduct) is poor game design".

I feel that balancing mechanical penalties (a class feature that does you no good) with real-life emotional benefits (the warm glow of helping others) is likewise poor, or just lazy, game design.

It needs to be balanced mechanically - either by adding an offsetting benefit, or adding a similar penalty to everyone else. My preference would be to add a Warlord option that was not self-sacraficing, and ALSO make sure every other class had a self-sacraficing feature they could take if desired. That makes mechanical balance possible, while still letting the players decide if they want that particualr brand of balance or not.

That's what I was expecting after 35 years of rules revisions to this game.

 

[Stalker0]

we'd turn the warlord into the 3e cleric.

A couple of things:

1) It would take a huge strength in buffing to turn the 4e warlord or cleric into the 3e cleric. It wasn't just that the cleric in 3e could buff himself, his buffs were AWESOME! While 4e buffs are useful, they do not have the fighting stat alteration ability of 3e buffs.

2) I was recommending a once per encounter ability to give the leader a little selfishness, not a total every warlord power now works on the warlord idea.

Back to the OP, I agree there is very little personal glory in the warlord or cleric, which again I find problematic. I don't mind helper classes, but I would prefer a little less helper and a little more innate awesome. Basically...Chuck Norris with party buffs....because everyone is cooler when fighting with Chuck Norris!

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I feel that balancing mechanical penalties (a class feature that does you no good) with real-life emotional benefits (the warm glow of helping others) is likewise poor, or just lazy, game design.

Why? We are designing the game for the purpose of having "real-life emotional benefits", like the dreaded "fun" the designers always talked about.

A player that has fun helping other players will have fun with this class. A player that has fun doing things on his own will play a different class.

 

[Danceofmasks]

For example, let's say a character wants to a play a "smart fighter". Perfectly normal archetype.

Well, the rules determine the laws of the universe.
In 4e, being smart makes you a better tactician, and certainly a better arcanist, but it's less well suited for being a fighter.

Yes, dex is better. If you have a dex option.
But some people have a racial advantage in Str/Int (Genasi), and are better off building for that instead.
Though they miss out on feats, initiative, and dex-based skills, they're decent in combat.

Is that so bad?
You can build an intelligent fighter. It's functional but not optimal.

But there's also another factor at work in this system.
Arcanists.
If you're so smart, why aren't you using magic?
Even if you like slashing things, you could be a swordmage, have an enormous int, and beat people up with your brains.
'cos magic is the smart people's weapon.

 

[Danger Mouse]

You were helpful. Really. I didn't know if there was some underlying balance I wasn't seeing (I've just started really looking at the game) or if the mechanical penalties were actually supposed to be balanced by the thanks of the other players. Now I know. I disagree with the design decision, and it limits the classes I'll play in the game, but at least I know.

The way I see it, it's less a question of balance than one of focusing the player's attention. During combat, defenders and controllers are supposed to think "How can I keep the party from being over-whelmed?", strikers are supposed to think "What targets do I need to take out and how can I maximize my damage against them?", and leaders are supposed to think "What can I do to make sure the party as a whole survives and wins this combat?" Giving the leader classes abilities that help his allies but not himself is meant to keep the player focused on his job, in addition to making sure that we never see the dreaded CoDzilla again.

That said, as someone who is currently playing a warlord, I sometimes get annoyed when I can't target myself with some of my own healing or save-boosting powers. Particularly "Stand the Fallen"; by the time I need to use that, I usually need healing just as badly as everyone else.