Class Compendium: The Warlord (Marshal)

[Obryn]

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.)

I disagree with this assessment. The Fighter, at the very least, gets the 1 Daily and gets a better Encounter power, as well. He's got more selection in his At-Wills, and doesn't need to burn a Minor action to switch between them. His OAs get bonuses to-hit, and stop movement. The Core Fighter is, simply put, still the top Defender in the game; the Knight didn't even come close to unseating him.

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)

Does this honestly make a difference in play?

(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.

Fighters and Rogues had an entire extra book over Clerics and Wizards. Fighters also have the most Dragon article support out of any class.

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

I don't think fewer build options is the main purpose. I think the purpose is, fewer options during play for people who want to run a simple character.

- 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.

I expect we'll see this next week, but I'm fine handling this from a DM perspective where we just replace a character, if need be. But this seems to make the assumption that the simple classes are intended to be a tutorial of sorts, instead of a viable option for both old and new players.

- 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)

I hope not. I think the AEDU Fighter is just fine power-level-wise. It's still the best Defender in the game, bar none.

I don't think Rogues would get use out of an expanded weapon range. You couldn't use them with Daggermaster.

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

Why are such cautions needed? I can tell you from personal experience over 7 levels so far, it hasn't made a difference.

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.

So I'm confused here.

You're arguing that the Knight, Thief, and Slayer are overpowered now, instead of classes with Dailies? I'm confused where you think the imbalance is, because it seems to be something of a moving target in your posts.

-O

 

[Aegeri]

Yeah I have to agree with Obyrn. The Knight is cute, but in any tough encounter will suffer extremely badly against skirmishers/controllers and similar. The Knight suffers a lot of disadvantages and ironically, needs seriously character optimization knowledge to overcome them. Otherwise prepare to be the most irrelevant defender in the game in a lot of circumstances. The fighter is a flat out superior defender and his amazing wealth of options mean he can dictate a battle. While the Knight due to lacking any options beyond "I add 1[W] damage" cannot control or dictate any battlefield - he is purely dictated too. That's not a good situation for a defender to be in to be that vulnerable to skirmisher/controller powers (especially post-MM3).

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm seeing people post that options have been stripped from all martial characters.

Options have been stripped from all martial characters in Essentials. Essentials is intended to be played as an introduction to the game - without the prior material that has those options - and the only current, still WotC-run organized play, D&D Encounters, is Essentials-only (though, happily, many Essentials DMs ignore that).

So, yes, there has been some stripping of options. The old options exist, but they are marginalized as far as the current-and-going-forward version of the game is concerned.

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.

The Slayer, for instance is on par with the AD&D fighter in terms of complexity. It chooses a stance, occassionally piles on Power Strike damage, and then just hits stuff - hard, thanks to it's striker damage bonus. The 1e fighter, basically just picked a weapon (often from quite a few he was carrying around) and hit stuff (hard, thanks to his percentile STR), too, it also dealt with rule complexities that have long since been ironed out (weapon vs AC adjustment, detailed encoumbrance, plusses-that-lower-your-AC-which-is-good, mechanically wierd overbearing & grappling rules, assigning your shield and DEX bonuses to AC against specific enemies, and on and on).

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.

Clearly not. Likewise, you still have any 3.5 or AD&D books that delivered exactly the simplistic martial/complex caster dynamic that Essentials has battered 4e into a symblance of. So why did you need Essentials?

One thing we've been going in circles on is the bit about options 'still existing.' People don't like the changes in Essentials. They're told, "don't worry, the old options are still there - but, people wanted these 'new' options." Well, those new options aren't new, they're old-fashioned, they play like 3.5 and AD&D. If I have no right to complain about the direction of Essentials because the old stuff is still there, then, by the same token, the folks who wanted that 'new' (retro) direction, and whined long and loud about hating 4e and defecting to Pathfinder, had no right to ask for it in the first place, because they could've just kept playing 3.5!

So, clearly, since they /were/ able to complain and get what they were after, 'the old stuff is still there' is not a valid dismissal of complaints about the current game.

Really, when you think about it, this is a 4e discussion group. We're not here if we want to play an older version of the game. We're either here because we liked what 4e was delivering, or because we didn't and wanted to change it. Why? Why is it not enough to play a past version of the game that was the way you liked? Why did people make Pathfinder the #2 RPG, instead of just continuing to play 3.5? Clearly, there is something commonplace within gamer psyches that wants the latest & greatest, or wants to be part of the 'supported' community. Maybe it's about some sort of nerdish elitism or sense of belonging? I don't know. When I examine my own feelings on it, there's really an almost accademic component to it. I'm fascinated by games, rules, and game design, and have definite opinions about it... But, I also have an emotional reaction to the treatment of martial archetypes within the system. They were 'downtrodden' for so long time, and finally were granted parrity after 34 years of being 'meat shields' and high-hp magic-item-platforms. It just seems tragic to reverse that gain.

(Prior to 3e, I exclusively played casters, because they actually offered something of interest - even if the wierd Vancian casting didn't really model any caster archetype I cared for; when 3e opened up /some/ options for the martial archetype, it was amazing, there were these much more iconic heroic archetypes that were actually /viable/ as characters. OK, barely viable, if enthusiatically powergamed alongside indifferently-played casters, but still, there was finally something there. There was a sense that a fighter could be more than just a meat shield. It's funny, the cleric also got something like that, only the pendulum swung too far, from 'heal bot' to 'CoDzilla.' 4e finally put the martial archetypes were they belonged - on even footing with the other, now formally defined, sources. And the cleric, likewise was freed from it's 'healbot' steroetype, and finally balanced. Quite an accomplishment, 4e, when you think about it. Hey, it's not all bad: Essentials may have made the Fighter back into a meat shield, but at least it hasn't made the Cleric back into a healbot.)

 

[Obryn]

Clearly not. Likewise, you still have any 3.5 or AD&D books that delivered exactly the simplistic martial/complex caster dynamic that Essentials has battered 4e into a symblance of. So why did you need Essentials?

...because we're playing 4e? I'm still not buying this argument.

One thing we've been going in circles on is the bit about options 'still existing.' People don't like the changes in Essentials. They're told, "don't worry, the old options are still there - but, people wanted these 'new' options." Well, those new options aren't new, they're old-fashioned, they play like 3.5 and AD&D. If I have no right to complain about the direction of Essentials because the old stuff is still there, then, by the same token, the folks who wanted that 'new' (retro) direction, and whined long and loud about hating 4e and defecting to Pathfinder, had no right to ask for it in the first place, because they could've just kept playing 3.5!

Eh?

"I don't like the changes in Essentials." "Well, your old stuff is still there. Just use that." = valid response.

"I don't like the changes in 4e." "Well, your old stuff is still there. Just use that." = still a valid response.

As for the rest... Are you saying that the only game design innovation 4e has to offer players is the AEDU class structure? If not, then why are you arguing that people who like the Essentials classes should just play 3.5 or AD&D?

-O

 

[Tony Vargas]

"I don't like the changes in Essentials." "Well, your old stuff is still there. Just use that." = valid response.

"I don't like the changes in 4e." "Well, your old stuff is still there. Just use that." = still a valid response.

Well, that's going in the other direction, but at least consistent. According to this logic, though, there was no need for Essentials, as those who disliked the partity among sources, uniform complexity of classes, fighters 'casting spells' (having daily mechanics), and so forth, could, indeed, have continued playing the old game.

As for the rest... Are you saying that the only game design innovation 4e has to offer players is the AEDU class structure?

It's certainly the central and most significant innovation. Healing surges are a close second. Skill Challenges trail by a large margin because, while they're a great idea, they really didn't quite deliver.

If not, then why are you arguing that people who like the Essentials classes should just play 3.5 or AD&D?-O

I'm not. What I'm saying is that, /if/ you believe that those who don't like Essentials should just shut up and play a static version of 4e (cutting off sometime before Essentials); then, you must also believe that those who disliked 4e had no need to call for the retro changes that Essentials made. I'm actually arguing the contrary: that the existance of past versions of the game does not immunize changes from criticism.

Mostly what I'm doing is defending my right to be critical of the game as it stands, and offer my own ideas and opinions about why it's good or bad and how it could be better. Most discussions like these do deginerate into one side denying the other's right to have or express a position different from their own. They become circular pedantic arguments or mere shouting contests. It's the level of discourse you become accustomed to on-line.

I'd ignore the BS, but when you do that, they start shouting at you that you haven't 'addressed' their point. :sigh:

anyway, on to an actual point:

You're arguing that the Knight, Thief, and Slayer are overpowered now, instead of classes with Dailies? I'm confused where you think the imbalance is, because it seems to be something of a moving target in your posts.

One thing you have to keep in mind is that Power Source is an important distinction, as well as AEDU vs abberant class structures. Essentials did introduce some power inflation. That's not unusual, most new books do - it one way to make them 'interesting.' The prior Martial classes did not participate in that inflation, because the Essentials martial classes used a different, mostly incompatible, structure. The Divine and Arcane classes 'related' to those in HotF, for instance, /did/. So, a disparity has been introduced between 'old' classes. In addition, there's a disparity between 'old' martial classes and new ones - it's not a simple one, though. The new sub-classes enjoy an inflated base-line, but, in all likelihood, fall behind any ADEU class at higher levels (haven't /seen/ that yet, as I've yet to see an E class in higher level, or even mid-heroic play - in low-heroic, however boring they may be, they're quite effective).
So, to summarize: The Knight, Slayer & Rogue are 'overpowered' relative to their parent classes, in some fundamental ways (Slayer damage, Knight mark-punishment, Theives getting CA so easily, etc), that are quite aparent at low levels. However, they are /not/ overpowered relative to the AEDU classes in Essentials. So, yes, they are both over- and under- powered. (?!?!?) Over powered enough from power inflation to eclipse the older martial classes at low levels, under-powered (under-optioned, really) relative to non-Martial Essentials classes, as a campaign continues.

Combined with the emphasis on Essentials-only in the on-line CB and D&D Encounter, the new Essentials direction tends towards marginalizing the Martial source.

Which is not bad just because "I like martial" - I do, but I'm also quite fond of Arcane - but because it's returning to a paradigm that trivializes the most enduring archetypes of the heroic fantasy genre. The premier Fantasy Role Playing Game should do better than that.

 

[Obryn]

Well, that's going in the other direction, but at least consistent. According to this logic, though, there was no need for Essentials, as those who disliked the partity among sources, uniform complexity of classes, fighters 'casting spells' (having daily mechanics), and so forth, could, indeed, have continued playing the old game.

My main point is this:

As long as a new option doesn't overshadow the old options (and as I've said, I don't think the Essentials classes do), adding new options doesn't decrease the scope and flexibility of a game. So, your argument doesn't hold water for me - just like there was room in 3.5 for complex martial classes (Bo9S), there's room in 4e for simple ones. And adding them doesn't subtract options from anybody.

It's certainly the central and most significant innovation. Healing surges are a close second. Skill Challenges trail by a large margin because, while they're a great idea, they really didn't quite deliver.

From the DM side, I'd add on... multi-creature encounter design, workable math, less swingy combats, less save-or-die, concise monster stat blocks, self-contained monster stat blocks, a robust system for improvisation, no need to reference books during play, and a powerful ability to fairly customize monsters.

These aren't irrelevant to the game as a whole, and are noticeable from the players' side. I disagree that your short list is all that differentiates a 4e game from a 3.5 game, because I think the most significant innovations were on the far side of the screen.

I'm not. What I'm saying is that, /if/ you believe that those who don't like Essentials should just shut up and play a static version of 4e (cutting off sometime before Essentials); then, you must also believe that those who disliked 4e had no need to call for the retro changes that Essentials made. I'm actually arguing the contrary: that the existance of past versions of the game does not immunize changes from criticism.

Mostly what I'm doing is defending my right to be critical of the game as it stands, and offer my own ideas and opinions about why it's good or bad and how it could be better. Most discussions like these do deginerate into one side denying the other's right to have or express a position different from their own. They become circular pedantic arguments or mere shouting contests. It's the level of discourse you become accustomed to on-line.

I'd ignore the BS, but when you do that, they start shouting at you that you haven't 'addressed' their point. :sigh:

I think your concern about future support is potentially valid. I can completely see that argument. (I disagree that more future support is needed, but I can see where you're coming from.) Where I disagree is ... well, most other stuff. I simply disagree that there's enough data to say that your concern is actually founded.

anyway, on to an actual point:

One thing you have to keep in mind is that Power Source is an important distinction, as well as AEDU vs abberant class structures. Essentials did introduce some power inflation. That's not unusual, most new books do - it one way to make them 'interesting.' The prior Martial classes did not participate in that inflation, because the Essentials martial classes used a different, mostly incompatible, structure. The Divine and Arcane classes 'related' to those in HotF, for instance, /did/. So, a disparity has been introduced between 'old' classes. In addition, there's a disparity between 'old' martial classes and new ones - it's not a simple one, though. The new sub-classes enjoy an inflated base-line, but, in all likelihood, fall behind any ADEU class at higher levels (haven't /seen/ that yet, as I've yet to see an E class in higher level, or even mid-heroic play - in low-heroic, however boring they may be, they're quite effective).

(1) I disagree that the Cleric saw any improvement whatsoever from the existence of the Warpriest. I disagree that the Paladin saw much of any improvement from the existence of the Cavalier. Likewise, the Warlock with the Hexblade. I think the Druid benefited (more specifically I think the Sentinel benefited from the existence of the shapeshifter druid), and the Wizard got new toys. I am fine with the Rogue, Ranger, and Fighter seeing little benefit, because they had an entire extra book of options that non-Martial classes didn't.

At best, Wizards got the equivalent of an Arcane Power 2 out of HotFL with a few new build options and a stack of new powers. Druids got the close equivalent of a Primal Power 2. This is parity to me, not favoritism. The guys who should be mad are the Warlocks, Clerics, and Chaladins!

(2) I disagree that the baseline for Knights is significantly stronger than the baseline for Fighters. I agree that Thieves may start out a bit beefier given their crazy ways to get CA, but I don't think you can disregard the strength of options like Sly Flourish and the like. (I also don't think an expanded weapon range helps the Thief much; they have no multi-[W] powers whatsoever.)

So, to summarize: The Knight, Slayer & Rogue are 'overpowered' relative to their parent classes, in some fundamental ways (Slayer damage, Knight mark-punishment, Theives getting CA so easily, etc), that are quite aparent at low levels. However, they are /not/ overpowered relative to the AEDU classes in Essentials. So, yes, they are both over- and under- powered. (?!?!?) Over powered enough from power inflation to eclipse the older martial classes at low levels, under-powered (under-optioned, really) relative to non-Martial Essentials classes, as a campaign continues.

I just think we'll have to agree to disagree here. I simply don't think the new Martial classes are beefier than the old ones, even at low levels, with the possible exception of the Thief. (But even there I'm unconvinced, because a good party should be giving the Rogue CA every round anyway.)

Combined with the emphasis on Essentials-only in the on-line CB and D&D Encounter, the new Essentials direction tends towards marginalizing the Martial source.

Which is not bad just because "I like martial" - I do, but I'm also quite fond of Arcane - but because it's returning to a paradigm that trivializes the most enduring archetypes of the heroic fantasy genre. The premier Fantasy Role Playing Game should do better than that.

I don't think there's enough evidence for a trend here, even if you include Heroes of Shadow. I also don't think that Mike "Iron Heroes" Mearls - who's a complex martial class fanboy if there ever was one - is going to reverse course like that.

-O

 

[Tony Vargas]

You're arguing that the Knight, Thief, and Slayer are overpowered now, instead of classes with Dailies? I'm confused where you think the imbalance is, because it seems to be something of a moving target in your posts.-O

The old-fashioned class 'balance' that Eseentials is angling for /is/ very much a moving target. At low level, a traditional fighter was the tough, hard-hitting guy who made the real difference in many combats, and the magic-user stepped up to cast Sleep once in a blue moon, and otherwise threw darts. At high level, the magic-user rewrote reality, and fighter was only as significant as whatever magic items he was carrying. It was imbalanced, and the imbalances were different at low level than at high. The imblances between fighter and wizard were different than those between wizard and druid or thief and monk.

Yes, the daily-less classes in Essentials are going to outperform in some situations at low level, and be overshadowed in others at higher levels. They're also going to tend to be overshadowed in terms of sheer interest as there's just not much to be done with them. They're not simply 'overpowered' or 'underpowered.' It's ironic, really. While they're simpler options, for the player who chooses them, their addition makes the system as a whole more complex. While they disrupt balance by being different, they're actually more consistent performers (less peak power & fewer options) so they're actually 'more balanced' in some sense of encounter balance, even as they are imbalanced relative to other classes.

I think your concern about future support is potentially valid. I can completely see that argument. (I disagree that more future support is needed, but I can see where you're coming from.) I simply disagree that there's enough data to say that your concern is actually founded.
...
I don't think there's enough evidence for a trend here, even if you include Heroes of Shadow. I also don't think that Mike "Iron Heroes" Mearls - who's a complex martial class fanboy if there ever was one - is going to reverse course like that.-O

There may not be strong evidence to /prove/ that such a trend definitely exists. But, there's certainly no evidence against it, as yet. Everything we've seen so far is consistent with the 'worst case scenario' from tinfoilhatville. Hopefully, as things continue, there'll be some things that aren't. But, I'm really not much of an optimist. Mr. Mearls's past creadits, notwithstanding.

 

[nnms]

I've been running a mixed HoX/PHBX games since Essentials came out. The differences in the power level of the characters has been negligible. Some people at the table picked HoX classes and other people picked PHBX martial classes.

It's been 86 encounters and everything has worked together flawlessly.

As for the argument that those who like pre-HoX martial classes not getting any support, I will point to the existence of MP2 and the lack of the #2 book for the other power sources. And that even the small number of feats in HoX can really work well for pre-HoX martial classes.

As for the argument that those who start 4E with Essentials will somehow be trained to not have AEDU martial classes, I can only point to the Warlord being a free PDF on Wizards.com. What more availability of AEDU martial classes is needed that totally free and available with a click of a mouse?

 

[Obryn]

The old-fashioned class 'balance' that Eseentials is angling for /is/ very much a moving target. At low level, a traditional fighter was the tough, hard-hitting guy who made the real difference in many combats, and the magic-user stepped up to cast Sleep once in a blue moon, and otherwise threw darts. At high level, the magic-user rewrote reality, and fighter was only as significant as whatever magic items he was carrying. It was imbalanced, and the imbalances were different at low level than at high. The imblances between fighter and wizard were different than those between wizard and druid or thief and monk.....

I don't see anything even a little like that in my game, so far. This sounds a lot more like theorycraft than anything...

There may not be strong evidence to /prove/ that such a trend definitely exists. But, there's certainly no evidence against it, as yet. Everything we've seen so far is consistent with the 'worst case scenario' from tinfoilhatville. Hopefully, as things continue, there'll be some things that aren't. But, I'm really not much of an optimist. Mr. Mearls's past creadits, notwithstanding.

Well, what about what I'd posted above - that this is more a road to parity than anything else? Fighters and Rogues have MP2. Wizards and Druids don't. (And warlocks, chaladins, and clerics - more intentionally complex classes, in the tinfoil hat theory - got nothing out of HotFx at all.)

-O

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't see anything even a little like that in my game, so far. This sounds a lot more like theorycraft than anything...

I played & ran AD&D, both editions, for quite a while, and played 3.x extensively, I'm familiar with the reality of game balance in systems that mix classes with highly-limited/high-power abilities and those with largely-unlimmited/lower-power ones.

Well, what about what I'd posted above - that this is more a road to parity than anything else? Fighters and Rogues have MP2. Wizards and Druids don't.

Meh. I'm sure Arcane Power 2 & Divine Power 2 & Primal Power 2 would have been on their way but for Essentials. But, if HotFL did 'merely' bring the Wizard up to MP2 standards, what about HoS and its two new Wizard builds?

Besides, while the 4e martial classes have MP2, the Essentials Martial classes, even if older material is allowed into a game, do not - they have the utilities from MP2, FWTW. The 4e Martial classes not only got nothing from Essentials, they're getting nothing from post-E, and it seems all to likely that how it's going to be, going forward. The classes that got the non-AEDU treatment in Essentials have been split by the basic incompatibility. A situation much like what dual-primary classes, like the Warlock, have struggled with.

The impression I'm getting really is that balance is a lower priority going forward. If developers see an easy way to represent a new idea as a Wizard build, it'll be a wizard build - the synergies it may open up for prior wizard builds not withstanding. If they have a concept that should clearly be martial, it'll be implemented as a non-AEDU sub-class, so as to maintain the mechanical distinction between casters- and non-casters. If they don't see a way to make a new idea a build of an old class, they'll make a new class, and leave it 'orphaned,' with no prior or future support. Classes that are compatible with their sub-classes will see continued support, incompatible and novel classes probably won't. It's consistent with the vision of 'opening up design space' that has been articulated, and it's a sensible design aproach: it takes fewer resources to produce a sub-class or a non-AEDU class than to create balanced new classes within the 4e class structure. Classes can be differentiated more strongly on mechanics, so much more tenuous concepts can be used. For all that I disagree with this new direction, I can't call it 'stupid' or anything. WotC is in a tough spot, and they're making the decision they need to.