Class Compendium: The Warlord (Marshal)

[Obryn]

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.

Errr... me too? I just ran AD&D about a year and a half ago, and have been playing through the editions since 82 or so. So... I don't know what you're saying, here.

Meh. I'm sure Arcane Power 2 & Divine Power 2 & Primal Power 2 would have been on their way but for Essentials.

...but they weren't. Which is my point. Why give more support to the most-supported classes, before spreading it around to some other classes?

Besides, while the 4e martial classes have MP2, the Essentials Martial classes, even if older material is allowed into a game, do not.

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.

And if you're playing one, that's part of what you signed up for. Again, this is something that a player can figure out on their own, without the game designers telling them what they should be playing.

-O

 

[Tony Vargas]

Errr... me too? I just ran AD&D about a year and a half ago, and have been playing through the editions since 82 or so. So... I don't know what you're saying, here.

Did you find AD&D to have robust class balance? Or did you notice that casters started off weak and became extremely powerful at higher levels? Or did you mostly run in the narrow 'sweet spot,' where there was some rough balance to be found?

...but they weren't. Which is my point. Why give more support to the most-supported classes, before spreading it around to some other classes?

Why indeed? If that were the intent, why support the Wizard and Cleric before the Artificer or Warden? There are some profoundly under-supported classes, and the Wizard - by far the greatest beneficiary of Essentials+, with 6 new builds on the table (4 definitely compatible, two coming in HoS) - is certainly not one of them.

And if you're playing one, that's part of what you signed up for. Again, this is something that a player can figure out on their own, without the game designers telling them what they should be playing.-O

The split-primary classes have prettymuch been acknowledged as a mistake. You'll note there haven't been any in quite a while. Splitting a class via a major structural change would seem to have similar consequences.

Here's some 'theorycrafting' on that:

Split primary classes share utilities pretty easily, but attack powers, which depend upon the primary stat, tend to be for either one or the other set of builds. Thus, initially, either build of the class might well half the viable power choices of a single-primary class. Half the number of choices is /many/ fewer possible combinations, so the potential synergies available to such a class are greatly curtailed. The Warlock suffered painfully from that phenomenon. The Paladin had to be beefed up with extra class features. And the STR Cleric was largely abandoned, leaving the WIS Cleric viable, with the lion's share of Cleric choices. The class that got buy with two primaries was the Ranger - and virtually all of it's powers work with either stat.

Splitting a class mechanically has the same consequence. Builds of one type can't utilize material for the other. A Slayer can't use a new Fighter daily, a Fighter can't use a new Slayer weapon-specialization option. In the case of 4e vs Essentials martial builds, the similarity is pretty high. Attack powers are either the province of one sort of build or the other, but utilities can generally be used by both.

 

[kaomera]

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?

I enjoy essentials. It provides me a play experience that I like. I also enjoy AD&D, and it provides me a play experience that I also like. However I like essentials for far different reasons than I like AD&D because it, like all 4e, is a far, far different game. I don't find the Slaver or the Knight simplistic, and I don't even find them less complex than any other fighter in any way that is significant to me. I'm not seeking to deny you your right to have and express your opinions on the subject, but IMO you're pushing those opinions as fact. You don't have to "go back to" pre-essentials 4e; but IMO you've claimed that essentials turned the fighter into some kind of bizarre caricature of the AD&D fighter, and I disagree with that statement. But, whatever, I think that's all I need to say on the topic. I guess I just really don't have the play experiences to give me much idea where you're coming from.

 

[Tony Vargas]

IMO you've claimed that essentials turned the fighter into some kind of bizarre caricature of the AD&D fighter, and I disagree with that statement.

Not at all, the Slayer, in particular, quite captures the feel of the AD&D fighter. When I played a Slayer at the Red-Box Game Day, I was struck by the sheer nostalgia of it. 4 out of 5 hourglasses of nostalgia, easy. It was even amusing for the first couple hours. In that sense, it's a rousing success. All they had to do to butcher the balance and consistency that 4e had brought to D&D classes for the first time. Too high a price tag, for a little nostalgia, IMHO.

 

[Obryn]

Did you find AD&D to have robust class balance? Or did you notice that casters started off weak and became extremely powerful at higher levels? Or did you mostly run in the narrow 'sweet spot,' where there was some rough balance to be found?

No, of course I don't find AD&D to have robust class balance. I ran AD&D for the stuff AD&D is good at, not for the stuff 4e is good at. And yes, I still think 4e is dandy at class balance with or without Essentials classes involved, from my own game table experience.

Why indeed? If that were the intent, why support the Wizard and Cleric before the Artificer or Warden? There are some profoundly under-supported classes, and the Wizard - by far the greatest beneficiary of Essentials+, with 6 new builds on the table (4 definitely compatible, two coming in HoS) - is certainly not one of them.

To which I ask - Why not?

Also, I somehow doubt a supplement/alternate-starting-point marketed for and intended as back-to-basics would have Artificers and Wardens.

The split-primary classes have prettymuch been acknowledged as a mistake. You'll note there haven't been any in quite a while. Splitting a class via a major structural change would seem to have similar consequences.

Here's some 'theorycrafting' on that:

Split primary classes share utilities pretty easily, but attack powers, which depend upon the primary stat, tend to be for either one or the other set of builds. Thus, initially, either build of the class might well half the viable power choices of a single-primary class. Half the number of choices is /many/ fewer possible combinations, so the potential synergies available to such a class are greatly curtailed. The Warlock suffered painfully from that phenomenon. The Paladin had to be beefed up with extra class features. And the STR Cleric was largely abandoned, leaving the WIS Cleric viable, with the lion's share of Cleric choices. The class that got buy with two primaries was the Ranger - and virtually all of it's powers work with either stat.

Splitting a class mechanically has the same consequence. Builds of one type can't utilize material for the other. A Slayer can't use a new Fighter daily, a Fighter can't use a new Slayer weapon-specialization option. In the case of 4e vs Essentials martial builds, the similarity is pretty high. Attack powers are either the province of one sort of build or the other, but utilities can generally be used by both.

I'll agree that there's a design issue with A-shaped vs. V-shaped classes. Ironically, I don't think the designers had a very good handle on the 4e system when PHB1 was released. I have some different conclusions from this than you do, though.

What you end up with, in a V-shaped class, is effectively two subclasses. So, one could also say that each leg of the V should have been treated as and called out as a separate subclass - like the design decisions we're seeing now - instead of being entirely absent, like I think you're suggesting.

It's not that a V-shaped class is necessarily a mistake or an inherently bad design; it's that a V-shaped class is really two subclasses which share some common features of the main class, and they should be treated and addressed as such. V-shaped classes can and do work just fine; it's only when you run into serious MAD issues, like with a starlock or a straladin, that things get chancy.

I don't think the issue with V-shaped classes would have been nearly as bad had the designers made sure that each branch of the V had more powers to choose from. All the existing V-shaped classes are fine right now; even the poor Strength cleric has enough powers to live off of.

-O

 

[S'mon]

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.

I can't tell if this is a straw man or you actually believe it. Do you understand that many people enjoy 4e, which is a very very different game from previous versions of D&D, but dislike the complexity of building and running standard 4e PCs? I find 4e a great game to GM, 4e makes GMing a lot easier than running (eek) 3e. But a lot of the 4e classes are more complex than I like to play, and without electronic support from charbuilder software they're also too difficult to make. That kept me out of 4e for over a year after its release. For players like me, who like playing 4e bit would prefer reduced player-side complexity, the simpler Essentials classes are wonderful. I love my E-Thief PC; I wouldn't enjoy playing a PHB Rogue nearly as much, even if he were potentially more effective. I've enjoyed playing a 4e PHB Fighter, but it was hard work; harder than I like to work when playing. Playing a Knight or Slayer looks much easier & thus for me more fun. And yet I still want to play 4e. There are so many ways where I find 4e much better than 3e - it has decent class balance, the non-AC defenses system is a million times better than 3e saving throws, the power of magic is greatly curtailed, fights are much more interesting, and so on.

 

[Obryn]

Not at all, the Slayer, in particular, quite captures the feel of the AD&D fighter. When I played a Slayer at the Red-Box Game Day, I was struck by the sheer nostalgia of it. 4 out of 5 hourglasses of nostalgia, easy. It was even amusing for the first couple hours. In that sense, it's a rousing success. All they had to do to butcher the balance and consistency that 4e had brought to D&D classes for the first time. Too high a price tag, for a little nostalgia, IMHO.

In what way, honestly? Other than, "My guy is simple to run and uses a two-handed sword?"

AD&D Fighters don't have stances or second winds, they have no power attack features, they have no feats, they have no skills, they have no separate build options based on weapons, they have no action points, they have no paragon path options, they can't push enemies, they have no reason to wear light armor, and they don't have mad charging skillz.

The slayer uses unquestionably and unmistakably 4e mechanics, not AD&D ones. It's a stylistic call-back, absolutely and intentionally, but not a mechanical one at all.

-O

 

[Incenjucar]

V-Shaped classes might make more sense if you could get enough synergy for being 18/18 instead of 20/16 to make up for the accuracy loss. Until then...

 

[S'mon]

Re the horror of V-shaped classes; personally I always go for the 20-in-Prime-stat A-shape PCs, but...

I rebuilt a 3rd level half-elf Warlord PC for a fellow player yesterday; to work as intended she needed to be W-shaped, with good STR INT & CHA. I got her to STR 17 (+3) INT 14 (+2) CHA 16 (+3), STR can go to 18 when she hits 4th. So she's not fully optimised for any one thing, but she can attack with STR, use INT powers, and use CHA powers, all with reasonable effectiveness; she has AC 20 (heavy shield prof & +1 chainmail), and 16 in every NAD; CON 12 can go to 13 at 4th level, enabling scale armour prof. Overall I think it makes her a very robust, flexible support character who is good at not dying, can hit moderately well (ATT+8 at level 3 is as good as the monsters, anyway, and it'll go to +10 at 4th); and she has a wide variety of reasonable options to support the party. For her given role - and we have 2 Leaders in this group, the other a Cleric - I can't say this is a 'worse' PC than a traditional A-shaper.

 

[Tony Vargas]

In what way, honestly? Other than, "My guy is simple to run and uses a two-handed sword?"

Well, when you played a fighter in AD&D, you would have a large hit/damage bonus from your percentile strength (and weapon specialization). For the first couple of levels, you were the star of the show. You were the one bringing the monsters down while the theif failed to find/remove traps (or hide in shadow or anything else but 'climb walls) and the wizard shivered in his robes in the back, throwing darts. Weapon specialization (introduced in Unearthed Arcana), gave you a very potent ranged option, but it was very much a build option. If you were a bow specialist, you were a vicious archer, and still a good melee type, if you specialized in melee weapon you were brutal with, and still not bad with a bow or thrown weapons (especially with a 'strenght bow). Then there were the plethora of variants and oft-ignored rules. Every game had some extra stuff you could pull in combat. Maybe grappling, maybe called shots, maybe siezing the high ground, whatever the DM was into. The Slayer evokes some of that. His striker damage bonus makes him a bad-ass, and his stances echo a little of the plethora of non-standard options you'd often find at the AD&D table. Stances pour a little - well not gasoline, a little something mildly flamale - on the big damage fire, too. But only a little - you mostly just pick a stance and stick with (especially if you have Berserker's Charge - you lead with that, and then switch to 'Poised Asault' or 'Unfettered Fury' or whatever your other stance is until you need to charage again). Depending on your chargen decisions, you can be great at melee and not at all bad with a bow, or the reverse.

About the only AD&D feel the Slayer didn't deliver on was 2e's TWFing. Every weapon specialist and his maiden aunt used TWFing in 2e AD&D. That's why I felt the Slayer had the more 1e feel.

AD&D Fighters don't have stances or second winds, they have no power attack features, they have no feats, they have no skills, they have no separate build options based on weapons, they have no action points, they have no paragon path options, they can't push enemies, they have no reason to wear light armor, and they don't have mad charging skillz.

Well, depending on your DM you might do some mad charging, push enemies, or have a reason to wear light (or no) armor (there were some weird variants - the game was a lot less unified and consistent across campaigns than it is today), and weapon specialization certainly channeled them into weapon-specific paths. But, sure, the Slayer has feats & skills and so forth, and the AD&D fighter didn't. And, really, neither did anyone else in AD&D have feats or skills or other more recent inovations. By the same token, /everyone/ in Essentials has feats and skills and so forth. So they're not notable aspects of the Slayer. Tough, big damage, and just attacking or moving & attacking every round, that's the distinctiveness of the Slayer - and the 1e AD&D Fighter.