Class Compendium: The Warlord (Marshal)

[Dice4Hire]

Well, I'm fine with my Thief, his only Encounter power is Backstab (now x2!). Much of the fun there is working out how to pull off getting Combat Advantage EVERY SINGLE TIME.

That is not hard. And for Essentials even easier.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Oh, one more thought on the over-reaction or over-estimation of the impact of Essentials.

(This it tin-foil hat stuff, BTW - you've been warned)

Essentials is presented as an 'evergreen' 'on-ramp' to the game for new players. That means that the expectations of those desgining it was for new players to learn the assumptions (tropes, memes, prejudices - however you want to think of it) of the game, from Essentials. Essentials teaches new players that the most prevelent and iconic of heroic archetypes - the heroic warrior - are simplistic classes that serious players will probably eschew in favor of more complex and interesting (and, eventually, powerful) casters.

Why create an 'on ramp' that perpetuates an obsolete perception of the martial source that new players will just have to un-learn when they move on to pre- and post- Essentials products? One reason would be that there will ultimately be nothing to un-learn, that it's just the first step in getting the game back to the paradigm in which that perception was true.

 

[S'mon]

Not only do the HotFL martial classes offer little support to their parent classes, but, by their very existance, they have the potential to divide future support between the sub-classes and the parent classes. Because they use a novel structure, the attack powers that are such a substantial part of 4e builds are not open to them, and, likewise, any expansions to their corresponding options aren't open to the parent classes.

Going forward, then, either the Essentials or 4e classes will recieve meaningful support - and participate in the inevitable power inflation that just happens with games like D&D. So far - and it hasn't been very far - neither has received meaningful support (there was one dragon article that kicked some staff-oriented features to the HotFL classes, neither get anything singificant out of HoS).

So, you have an uncertain future for the martial power source. Will the low-option, daililess classes receive more and more stances, feats, and weapon-specific features to choose from (each more potent than the last), or will they be left 'simple?' Will their parent classes receive the same level of support going forward as those of other sources? They're already behind - the wizard has recieved 4 new highly compatible builds, and has two more set to appear in HoS, for instance.

The same question doesn't plague the Cleric or Wizard - their sub-classes follow the 4e structure, and that compatibility means that support for either is support for both.

We don't know what's going to happen. But, Essentials has set the stage for a return to the high-powered casters and optionless fighters of yesteryear. All that's needed is to just leave the 4e martial classes alone for a few years and let them fall behind the power curve.

Personally, I've had it with "everything is core", so this is no longer an issue for me. Playing in a campaign where the DM restricted us to PHB, PHB2, and Essentials was a real eye opener, and going forward I'll be taking the same approach in my own DMing. The kind of player who can't function without splatbook option #456 is not the kind I want at my table, anyway. (Obviously YMMV, other DMs should choose the level of options which suits them & their campaign, etc.)

 

[S'mon]

That is not hard. And for Essentials even easier.

Yeah, I don't like my challenges too difficult.

It's more like:

19 times out of 20:

"He's not got an ally adjacent? Ambush Trick." Or:
"One of my buddies is next to him? Tactical Trick."

1 time in 20:

"He's got his allies adjacent, but none of mine? Well he's not acted yet, so I still have CA." Or:
"He's acted already? Well, thanks to Fleeting Ghost and me taking cover last round, he has to beat my Stealth roll... no? Then I still have CA."

The only time I think I've not had CA (except when attacking twice in a turn using an AP), we were fighting a bunch of minions and 2 of them were adjacent to each other on a cavern ledge above me. So it just meant -2 on my attack and I got the minion anyway. And with a bit of effort I could have probably used Fleeting Ghost the previous round to maintain CA there too, since I think it was only the 2nd combat round (r1: attack with CA, then move with Fleeting Ghost to hide. r2: Pop up, attack with CA)

 

[S'mon]

Oh, one more thought on the over-reaction or over-estimation of the impact of Essentials.

(This it tin-foil hat stuff, BTW - you've been warned)

Essentials is presented as an 'evergreen' 'on-ramp' to the game for new players. That means that the expectations of those desgining it was for new players to learn the assumptions (tropes, memes, prejudices - however you want to think of it) of the game, from Essentials. Essentials teaches new players that the most prevelent and iconic of heroic archetypes - the heroic warrior - are simplistic classes that serious players will probably eschew in favor of more complex and interesting (and, eventually, powerful) casters.

Eh, I'm fairly experienced in 4e; I've GM'd 18 sessions and played a dozen or so since 2009. But I much prefer to play simpler character builds, I don't like having to think too hard when I play (as opposed to DMing). I do want my simple PC to be comparably effective to the other PCs, whatever their level of complexity.

 

[kaomera]

I'm not really sure why all powers should not be Encounter powers.

See, this is the closest I've seen to anyone saying that they want to take anything away from anyone.

Personally, I've had it with "everything is core", so this is no longer an issue for me.

Can't give you more XP right now, but yeah, I'm starting to feel like "nothing is core" is much more the way to go.

 

[TwoSix]

You can absolutely have simple martial classes, complex overpowered classes, (part of the retro feel) and not play 4e. That's easy. I know that's not what you meant. No, you can't have all three. 4e was a version of D&D that delivered a high degree of class balance. Destroy that, and you can restore the feel of prior eds, including making some classes overly simplistic and other complex and highly abuseable. But it's not the comparatively modern 4e version of D&D anymore.

I would have more sympathy for the "simplicity nerfs martial" argument if there were any compelling argument that the Slayer and Knight were less powerful than the Fighter-Weaponmaster.

And I would argue that you can make classes in the 4e framework that are AEDU, AEU, ADU, AU, EDU, EU, DU, or just U and still balance them. Distribution of effects is paramount. What needs to be overhauled is the resource/attrition system, creating a method where more powerful attacks are used with a determinable frequency that isn't tied to narrative.

 

[kaomera]

One reason some of you are scratching your heads over this issue is because you're seeing misgivings about possible future directions indicated by specific addtions to the sysstem, and interpreting them as complaints about the current state of the game as a whole. When someone expresses alarm at the stripping of dailies from the Fighter, they're not saying that they've been stripped from all fighters, but from the most recent, and, that could lead to all martial classes losing the parity with casters they enjoyed in 4e. That designers have characterized Essentials as indicative of a 'new direction,' makes that seem all the more likely.

I'm seeing people post that options have been stripped from all martial characters. They may mean that they feel like the current design direction could lead to the possible loss of some options for martial characters in the future, but that's not how what they've written reads. Hence my continued disbelief.

Some examples of what I'm talking about:

Wanting easy options is one thing, wanting to see more interesting options taken away from those who might want to play a martial class is something else entirely. Something petty and spiteful.

No. You want to play the 'you can keep playing what you already have' card? Fine. Everyone who cried for 4e to become simpler and more retro-nostalgic, put your Essentials books in a box and send it to WotC with an apology, saying you're sorry, but you forgot you already had 34 years worth of D&D products that gave you exactly what you wanted.

One thing I really do not like about some essentials supporters is their insistence that martial classes be dirt dry dead boring. No healing, no conditions, no dailies, no..... fun.

At least in my opinion.

I apologize if I'm mis-reading any of that, but it comes across as stating as fact things that I feel are just not so. (And there was one more posts that I don't feel completely comfortable quoting or replying to.) I'll admit that I have a strong difference of opinion on some of the basic assertions about the essentials martial sub-classes, such as that they have "basically no options" or are on-par in terms of mechanical complexity with early-edition fighters, or that somehow liking them means that I don't actually want to play 4e.

And if you're strictly talking about future possibilities, then I'm not sure there's much room for fruitful discussion. I've seen the previews of material from HoS that provide support for pre-essentials characters generally dismissed and ignored, and if WotC isn't actually engaged in some kind of dire conspiracy against the essentials-haters (which apparently includes falsifying previews?) then it can be safely disregarded as not being real, significant support, simply because they haven't completely disavowed the essentials products.

You can absolutely have simple martial classes, complex overpowered classes, (part of the retro feel) and not play 4e. That's easy. I know that's not what you meant. No, you can't have all three. 4e was a version of D&D that delivered a high degree of class balance. Destroy that, and you can restore the feel of prior eds, including making some classes overly simplistic and other complex and highly abuseable. But it's not the comparatively modern 4e version of D&D anymore.

So, why can't I have all three (simple, retro, 4e)? Do you seriously expect me to believe that you're going to come to my house and take all of my D&D books away from me? Because that's what it would take. I've got all three. Right here. Seriously.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I would have more sympathy for the "simplicity nerfs martial" argument if there were any compelling argument that the Slayer and Knight were less powerful than the Fighter-Weaponmaster.

Essentials introduced a surge of power inflation. The wizard and cleric - and any other classes whose E and E+ sub-classes are highly compatible - rode that wave. The Fighter didn't (the Rogue was thrown the SA upgrade the Theif got, so snagged a little more).

I've only ever seen the Knight and Slayer in play at low level, and there's not question in my mind that, between the power inflation since MP2, and the dynamics of AEDU vs basic-attack classes at very low level, the Knight and Slayer significantly outperform the Guardian and Greatweapon builds. (The Knight & Slayer don't get dailies, and don't get encounter resources significantly greater than AEDU classes, they're compensated for their lack of dailies by more powerful at-will resources. At 1st level, when AEDU classes have only one daily, that compensation is quite adequate. How the features they gain at higher levels stack up to 3 or 4 dailies, I haven't yet seen.)

That in no way calms the misgivings of those who want to see continued choice, complexity and balance in the Martial source, though. By giving the Knight, Slayer & Thief an extra boost, especially at low levels, the more complex classes are marginalized. Why would play a 'weaponmaster' (who actually doesn't hit as well with weapons as your Knight or Slayer, whose weapon talents are accross the board) who is more complicated, but not as good, initially, as the simpler builds?

(Fair warning, guys, I'm knowingly moving into tin-foil hat territory, here. But, remember, just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean no one's out to get you. )

So, the Fighter has received virtually no benefit from Essentials, due to the relative incompatibility of the Knight & Slayer, while the Cleric and Wizard have gained a number of new powers. For the WIS Cleric, warpriest powers open up new melee options, and include many powers, even at wills, with good Effect lines (often comparable to those that existing Cleric at-wills deliver only on a hit). For the Wizard, the Mage offers a number of new and upgraded powers, including the largest-area at-will attack ever, and upgrades to some (eventually, all, the developers have hinted) encounter attack powers.

Going forward from HotFL, the Knight, Slayer & Rogue got a dragon article about using quarterstaffs - not the first choice of weapon for any of them. The Wizard got the Pyromancer. There's nothing further in the offing for the martial builds. The Cleric and Wizard get more material coming their way in HoS.

While there are reasonable explanations for all of this: The only intent was to create tiers of more and less complex classes. That all the less-complex classes happened to be martial is a 'coincidence' or to match player expectations based on classic D&D. Of course new material isn't going to be added to the simpler classes - that would defeat their purpose. The Wizard has a wealth of only partially tapped old ideas in the form of schools, so of course, they're going to expand upon them. There are also some much less reasonable explanations like 'the wizard was underpowered.' Yeah, right.

But reasonable rationalizations of the designers' motives don't help if the results are still the same.

What would quell these misgivings?

(OK, tinfoil hats off...)

I'm not sure, but, for me, I'd feel more confident about the 'new direction' if...

- Simplistic sub-classes begin apearing for other sources, not just martial. As it stands, new players 'learn' that martial classes are simple weapon-swingers, and that casters are complex and interesting. That's not true of the broader game, so (best case) they'll have to un-learn it at some point. (Worse case it will become true of the broader game)

- Simplistic sub-classes receive zero support going forward (because more options would defeat the purpose, afterall)

- But, simplistic classes also recieve the needed mechanics for an 'upgrade path.' So that when players become bored with the limited options of their Theif or Knight or whatever, they can seamlessly translate it to the more option-rich parent class, either piecemeal or through a straightforward conversion process.

- The fighter and rogue are updated into line with the power inflation that occurred in essentials. (So, rogue and fighter weapon talents expanded; fighter mark-punishment becoming per-turn)

- Greater emphasis on maintaining class balance for the whole game, and DM cautions about mixing simple and complex classes in ongoing campaigns.


While that would help, it's still not ideal. Ideal would have been never abandoning the class-balance of the AEDU structure in the first place, and not trying to reverse the parity among sources - both of which 4e delivered for the first time in the game's history.

And I would argue that you can make classes in the 4e framework that are AEDU, AEU, ADU, AU, EDU, EU, DU, or just U and still balance them. Distribution of effects is paramount. What needs to be overhauled is the resource/attrition system, creating a method where more powerful attacks are used with a determinable frequency that isn't tied to narrative.

A non-narrative frequency could make it easier to balance different levels of resources, by being more consistent and predictable. But, what would such a system be? And how could it be done without making it even more gamist and less simulationist and more 'video gamey?'

In any case, 4e does not use such a sytem, so encounter powers vary in relative effectiveness to at-will powers depending upon how long encounters tend to be, and daily powers vary relative to at-will/encounter powers based on how many encounters there tend to be in a day. So, no, they quite litterally /can't/ be perfectly balanced. They can't even be as balanced as all-AEDU classes are.

Why anyone would argue the point is beyond me: every previous incarnation of the game clearly demonstrated the lack of balance inherent in giving some classes unlimitted-use abilities and other limitted-use ones compensated with greater power. Anyone clamoring to go back to that clearly doesn't want class balance. Whether they're willing to sacrific it to get some retro-feel or class differentiation or 'realism'/verismilitude, or whether they just hate balance on the face of it, because they want the opportunity to puzzle out the most overpowered character possible, I can't say. I just can't agree with giving class balance a low priority in a game like this.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

It is all about plot power, really. It isn't about gnat's arse level of balancing classes for combat. That's nice and all, but I don't honestly think the E-classes are that far out of line there, and minor issues of who's going to be a bit better if the day is longer or shorter are unlikely to rise to the level of being 'problems'.

Plot power OTOH COULD. As long as each class had a suite of powers it was a lot less likely that you ended up with the casters being able to deal with almost any problem and the melee types relegated to body-guard duty. Looking at where things are at now though rituals are gone. Utility powers are still available to anyone, and skills took up a lot of this slack in 4e anyway. So at this point your Slayer will hold up fairly well option-wise with a Mage, particularly if you poach skill powers from PHB3 etc. Given that encounter/daily martial powers generally had little out-of-combat utility anyhow you haven't lost much.

The nervousness about Essentials as a DIRECTION though I find perfectly understandable. Nobody is going to take your old stuff away, sure, but we'd all like the people working on our favorite game to share our preferences and sensibilities. If they don't, well, that makes people nervous. Regardless of HOW it happens WotC is going to have to cycle out older 4e material at some point, either by just inflation, new incompatible mechanics, or a totally new edition. If that material is not built based on a design paradigm you like, then you're no longer really getting support for the game you DO like, even if technically it is the same game.

Thus there are plenty of people saying "don't go in this direction", I don't think it should be dismissed out of hand as not being a valid concern, even if it really has fairly little impact right now.