Class Compendium: The Warlord (Marshal)
- Thread starter Peraion Graufalke
- Start date
Vael
Legend
The Marshal is the Warlord. This is not a new class, it's a reprint with clarifications and errata.
Why call it the Marshal? So that the subclass has a name. That way, if one were to make another Warlord subclass, like the Champion, they'd be differentiated. All AEDU fighters will soon be known as Weaponmasters. I wonder what they'll call the other subclasses.
Why call it the Marshal? So that the subclass has a name. That way, if one were to make another Warlord subclass, like the Champion, they'd be differentiated. All AEDU fighters will soon be known as Weaponmasters. I wonder what they'll call the other subclasses.
Yeah, I think all existing Warlords are now also Marshals. Much like all existing Fighters that are not Knights or Slayers, will soon become Weaponmasters. Guess they're trying to bring some consistency to the naming convention, so we don't have to ask are you a fighter knight? or fighter slayer? or fighter fighter? Down the road there might be a Strategist, which is a Warlord build with both martial and arcane power sources adding arcane flavor for utility powers, ala what the Hunter did to Ranger with primal powers. We will now have an easy differentiation.
UngeheuerLich
Legend
Cut all you want, complain all you want, but there once were 8 schools of magic. Transmutation already has some powers. (Red box)
So including a transmuter would be a wise move. I rather have 100 subclasses of fighter, cleric, wizard, and rogue than a runepriest, which concept is cool, but needs extra support.
Even if slayers and knights are limited fighters, most feats are usable and appropriate for all of them. So no extra support is needed and the bloat is reduced.
A bard also was a rogue once. It could have been a subclass of it too. First there were so many complains how they dared to deviate from D&D´s previous incarnations, and now there are, because they are going back to its roots.
D&D 4e is in a way going back to its roots from the beginning, but that was hidden under new shiny rules. Essentials are just doing it more obviously.
Imagine that essentials were the first books released. You would have seen less complains. When then the weapon master had been introduced, a lot of people would have complained about dailies, i guess more than now complain about the slayer and knight.
I guess in the end, it just didn´t really matter...
Why not just accept, that a game can support more than one playstyle? I did not too loudly complain about 3.5s addiditions that I didn´t like. I just didn´t use them...
(Ok, i once went to andy collins website and was very loudly complaining about the epic level book, which for me was an indicator that D&D 3.5 was made for powergamers... andy collins himself answered in a very kind manner, so even though i sometimes don´t like his design principles, he is a very fine guy.)
So including a transmuter would be a wise move. I rather have 100 subclasses of fighter, cleric, wizard, and rogue than a runepriest, which concept is cool, but needs extra support.
Even if slayers and knights are limited fighters, most feats are usable and appropriate for all of them. So no extra support is needed and the bloat is reduced.
A bard also was a rogue once. It could have been a subclass of it too. First there were so many complains how they dared to deviate from D&D´s previous incarnations, and now there are, because they are going back to its roots.
D&D 4e is in a way going back to its roots from the beginning, but that was hidden under new shiny rules. Essentials are just doing it more obviously.
Imagine that essentials were the first books released. You would have seen less complains. When then the weapon master had been introduced, a lot of people would have complained about dailies, i guess more than now complain about the slayer and knight.
I guess in the end, it just didn´t really matter...
Why not just accept, that a game can support more than one playstyle? I did not too loudly complain about 3.5s addiditions that I didn´t like. I just didn´t use them...
(Ok, i once went to andy collins website and was very loudly complaining about the epic level book, which for me was an indicator that D&D 3.5 was made for powergamers... andy collins himself answered in a very kind manner, so even though i sometimes don´t like his design principles, he is a very fine guy.)
Incenjucar
Legend
That's easy to imagine, I would never have been interested in 4E in the first place.
I'd probably have moderate interest, but I wouldn't have dived into it with the passion I have. 4E's original design basically opened up the possibilities I've been dreaming of since 2nd edition. I'd also have to play a wizard in every freaking game.
fanboy2000
Adventurer
1) I agree.
2) Marshal's are awesome. If you don't believe me, watch any version of True Grit or Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.
Tony Vargas
Legend
The Marshal was a 3e class. It was... sad. The kind of failed experiment that you don't want to have to re-live. The Warlord is too good to be saddled with the Marshal's legacy of suck.
They should have saved Marshal as the name for an Essentials-style, basic-attack-ghetto Warlord. It would have served as a warning label.
They should have saved Marshal as the name for an Essentials-style, basic-attack-ghetto Warlord. It would have served as a warning label.
I would have been fine with that.
And I'd have been excited if 2-3 years later they'd released the (errataed) PHB1 featuring builds with less restrictions and mutliclassing options.
