Can Wizards turn around their D&D support?

[Aulirophile]

That's what you think Tony, but Wizards will surprise us all by making an essential warlord that can only use his ALLIES basic attacks. Then gets stuck in a party full of characters without a good MBA and is promptly useless.

Cause that'd be a big change from the current Warlord setup... *cough* lazylords *cough*

 

[MerricB]

What are you hoping for? The 'Weaponmaster' preview was pretty uninspiring. Best case, it's just a formatting change. Worst case, the Essentialize it, and put it in the Basic Attack ghetto.

Stuff!

I don't expect it to change much. Actually, I almost expect it to change the least of any of the revised classes, if simply because they're presenting it first. The main thing that Sword & Spell was going to do - as I understand it - was present the classes in an "essential" format without changing them, so this Warlord should be pretty close to what I have in my PHB.

However, against that there are two other indicators:
* Every Wizard encounter power will get an effect or miss entry, so they do something even if you don't hit
* The Warlock is going to have some changes to make it do better striker damage. (Rule of Three)

So, there's the understanding that the classes *are* going to be tweaked.

Given that, I'm excited to see what they'll do to the warlord!

Cheers!

 

[gourdcaptain]

Gotta love putting mechanical updates to the Warlock behind a paywall. Didn't errata used to be free?

 

[Incenjucar]

Gotta love putting mechanical updates to the Warlock behind a paywall. Didn't errata used to be free?

We really should try to avoid making claims before something actually exists.

WotC's track record may not be great, but it doesn't do our hobby any good if we start speculating ourselves into misery.

 

[Erudite Frog]

Gotta love putting mechanical updates to the Warlock behind a paywall. Didn't errata used to be free?

Where are you seeing this?

 

[Jools]

We really should try to avoid making claims before something actually exists.

WotC's track record may not be great, but it doesn't do our hobby any good if we start speculating ourselves into misery.

Indeed. And their track record on giving us updates for free has been nothing but exemplary so far.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Gotta love putting mechanical updates to the Warlock behind a paywall.

We really should try to avoid making claims before something actually exists.

Well, there already is the Starpact Hexblade Warlock that is behind the paywall already.

Whether future stuff like that is placed behind the paywall is probably inevitable, but that it already has happened ticks ME off, I don't know about anyone else.

(Yes, I know this is technically not errata, but that doesn't diminish my ire.)

 

[Erudite Frog]

One build is behind the wall and you are upset? What about the Assassin? Wasnt it done this way? OOOOOOH NNNOOOOOOOOOO! DOOOOOOOOOOOOM

 

[MerricB]

At present, the Dragon article list describes it as:

Class Compendium: Warlord - Subscriber only
By R&D Staff
Class Compendium takes a fresh look at the versions of the fighter, cleric, rogue, warlord, and wizard that were originally presented in the 4th Edition Player's Handbook. This is where you'll see the most current updates to many powers, features, and feats for these classes. The series launches with the warlord!

With any luck, it'll also make it into the free updates, but we don't know if it will yet.

Cheers!

 

[Incenjucar]

Well, there already is the Starpact Hexblade Warlock that is behind the paywall already.

Whether future stuff like that is placed behind the paywall is probably inevitable, but that it already has happened ticks ME off, I don't know about anyone else.

(Yes, I know this is technically not errata, but that doesn't diminish my ire.)

The Starpact Hexblade's damage increase is behind the paywall and is not going to be included in the bi-annual errata documents?