Class Compendium: The Warlord (Marshal)

[The Little Raven]

I'm saying GIVE CLASS BALANCE A CHANCE!

And I'm saying CLASS BALANCE IS STILL THERE, THEY'RE JUST EXPERIMENTING WITH DIFFERENT LEVELS OF COMPLEXITY!

 

[Tony Vargas]

I know I 'yelled' but it was simply an exhortation.

You yelled back a statement of fact, that happens not to be correct. The 'experimenting with different levels of complexity' thing is /also/, inevitably, mucking about with class balanace. When all classes had the same underlying resource structure (AEDU) they balanced 'naturally,' the designer just has to keep his eye on the the individual powers and he's fine. The designer just asks himself 'is this at-will balanced with other at-wills?' 'is this daily balanced with other dailies?' Abandoning AEDU changes that formula, so the designer must now ask "is this at-will enough better than other at-wills to make up for a lack of dailies - taking into account that other classes will have 1 daily at low level, and 4 at high level, and that at-wills will be used more in longer combats and/or with more combats/day, while dailies might be used sub-optimally or saved too long and not used at all...."

That second question is hard for a skilled designer to answer. Heck, it's hard for an insomniac fan to even phrase at 5 in the morning. Because, it is that much more complicated and difficult a question - and, it probably has no right answer. In some campaigns, a daily might balance an at-will, while in others, the same daily will overshadow the same at will.

And, we're not just talking theory. D&D never achieved much semblance of class balance prior to 4e, because it kept having to try to answer questions akin to that second one.

 

[TwoSix]

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.

I have to disagree with this statement. Obviously, 3.5 is the most demonstrable showcase of lack of balance with the Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard. But later versions of 3.5 showed you could achieve rough parity with the right selection of classes. A party of Warblade, Factotum, Healer, and Warmage would certainly not be biased towards the casting classes! Power in 3e was driven by one factor alone: unfettered access to the wizard or cleric or druid spell list.

What drives imbalance has little to do with encounter frequency and everything to do with what effects can be generated. By 5th level, the full casting classes started getting "trump" spells, which generated effects that only other magic effects could overcome. (Fly, as an example). It's a result of pre-4e's emergent class design, where classes were granted powers that felt right for the archetype, and it was assumed that what occurred in play would fit the archetype.

4e's process design, where design works backwards from the endpoint of "this is what the class should be able to achieve," almost guarantees that we'll never see any power come out that allows grants wizards or clerics "you win" spells, as were so common in earlier editions. Combined with a ritual system where all of the narrative effect spells are available to all characters if they choose and are used as treasure, I don't see a reason to assume the emerging re-ascendance of the arcane.

Now, this doesn't mean I think martial should be stuck at the simplicity end of the simple/complex spectrum. I've advocated elsewhere for non-daily "dailies", powers of greater effect that aren't regulated purely by extended rests. Classes that gain powers triggered by "combo points" or a "limit break" system would be excellent ways to make new martial builds or martial classes.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I know I 'yelled' but it was simply an exhortation.

You yelled back a statement of fact, that happens not to be correct. The 'experimenting with different levels of complexity' thing is /also/, inevitably, mucking about with class balanace. When all classes had the same underlying resource structure (AEDU) they balanced 'naturally,' the designer just has to keep his eye on the the individual powers and he's fine. The designer just asks himself 'is this at-will balanced with other at-wills?' 'is this daily balanced with other dailies?' Abandoning AEDU changes that formula, so the designer must now ask "is this at-will enough better than other at-wills to make up for a lack of dailies - taking into account that other classes will have 1 daily at low level, and 4 at high level, and that at-wills will be used more in longer combats and/or with more combats/day, while dailies might be used sub-optimally or saved too long and not used at all...."

That second question is hard for a skilled designer to answer. Heck, it's hard for an insomniac fan to even phrase at 5 in the morning. Because, it is that much more complicated and difficult a question - and, it probably has no right answer. In some campaigns, a daily might balance an at-will, while in others, the same daily will overshadow the same at will.

And, we're not just talking theory. D&D never achieved much semblance of class balance prior to 4e, because it kept having to try to answer questions akin to that second one.

I don't think pre-4e D&D ever ATTEMPTED to achieve class parity. WAY back in the old days when asked about this Gygax made some noise about the balance being that magic users were weak at low levels, but frankly I think that was 100% after-the-fact rationalization and nobody ever really believed it meant diddly.

Yes, it may be somewhat harder to achieve balance when the mechanics are SOMEWHAT different. Still, the difference between a Mage and a Slayer is vastly less than the difference between a Fighting Man and a Magic User (of any edition). The Mage's powers are designed to be far less plot busting, lack "I Win" buttons, and mostly operate on a plane similar to martial powers, doing similar levels of damage, etc. Utility powers also provide a rather significant safety valve because your Slayer CAN employ powers and has some pretty useful ones (especially if you mine earlier material). The observed result from ALL reports I've seen of extended Essentials/4e mixed play is that parity is pretty good. Certainly within the parameters of what 4e already had (where frankly the martial classes outshine the others in a lot of respects).

So, my analysis would be that arguments about balance in previous versions are moot, they have nothing to teach us about that because absolutely no attempt was ever made to achieve it and it was simply not a concern. Possibly Bo9S WAS an experiment in that direction and simply serves to indicate how far from any such consideration 3.5 was. Essentials martial classes are pretty well balanced and serve as the proof that, while it may be slightly harder, you can still achieve balanced play even without all classes being AEDU.

 

[kaomera]

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.

Well, I disagree with you. Admittedly, I mostly DM, the only essentials sub-class I've actually played is the scout, and the last "retro-gaming" I've done is Labyrinth Lord (I last played AD&D some time in the late 80s). But my experience of playing essentials has been that it's still 4e, and as such is not the same game as AD&D, does not have the same feel as AD&D, and is focused on completely different things than 4e.

Furthermore, I don't think that essentials has "butchered" the balance and consistency of 4e, if it's touched on them at all it's been an improvement, IMO. If you really feel that way then our experiences are just vastly different; and if you mean that you fear that going forward further support for essentials and pre-essentials classes, or for martial and non-martial classes, then you might try saying that, instead.

The old-fashioned class 'balance' that Eseentials is angling for /is/ very much a moving target.

I don't see that essentials is "angling" for any such thing. For you this intent to change the face of 4e seems to be writ large across the essentials material, for myself I just don't believe it's there.

Did you find AD&D to have robust class balance?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "robust class balance", but if it's anything like "all classes had a similar level of importance and made a similar level of contribution to the game across all levels", then my answer is basically "yes". That was true of my AD&D experiences as a player and as a DM. If anything fighters and clerics where more generally important, while magic-users and thieves had more stand-out moments.

 

[OnlineDM]

You don't have to take his word for it, there is one such person in this thread, who has already posted in amazement the E-Warlord is actually just the same as the original warlord. Not some gutted version ala the Slayer/Knight, so it isn't very hard to find someone who wants this to happen to martial in general. Of course their delicious tears when the essentials weaponmaster is released will - in some ways - be enough of a compromise.

I think [MENTION=78116]Aegeri[/MENTION] may be referring to my post on the first page of this now-crazy-long thread. I was surprised that the Warlord article just reformatted the existing Warlord, with a little errata. I didn't see the point of WotC bothering to publish this article.

I AM interested in seeing new builds, and that's what I (erroneously, obviously) thought the Warlord article was going to be - a new build, similar to the Knight/Slayer/Thief.

To be clear, I would be JUST as interested in seeing that kind of build for a Wizard/Cleric/Sorcerer/Shaman/Psion/etc. I just think new builds are interesting.

I do NOT feel that cool powers and the AEDU structure needs to be taken away from Martial classes. I DO feel that seeing new builds is interesting.

I like the Warlord as-is, and I was also interested to see what a non-AEDU version of the Warlord class might look like. More build options = good in my book.

I understand that the Weaponmaster is just the new name for the regular non-Slayer, non-Knight Fighter. Fine. I also think that re-releasing it with new formatting is a less-than-ideal way for WotC to spend their time and development resources, since I'd rather see new stuff than reformatted old stuff, but I also recognize that other players see a lot of value in the new format and the incorporation of errata.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Furthermore, I don't think that essentials has "butchered" the balance and consistency of 4e, if it's touched on them at all it's been an improvement, IMO.

I'd be interested to hear in what ways you find it an improvement in balance.

if you mean that you fear that going forward further support for essentials and pre-essentials classes, or for martial and non-martial classes, then you might try saying that, instead. For you this intent to change the face of 4e seems to be writ large across the essentials material, for myself I just don't believe it's there.

I've been saying that, too, yes. There's a number of threads to this debate, and misgivings about what Essentials implies for the future of 4e is certainly one of them. Balance is another. Concerns about the future, are, obviously a matter of perception and intuition and even whether you tend to be an optimist or pessimist, trusting or skeptical. (I obviously tend towards pessimisim and skepticism.)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "robust class balance",

That classes make roughly equal contributions and share 'spotlight time' more or less equally over as many levels, situations, and play styles as possible. As opposed to fragile class balance, which might exist for a given range of levels, or among some sub-set of classes, or when certain play styles are encouraged or excluded. 3e, for instance, had rather fragile class balance. While AD&D had a more primative aproach to 'balance' that, well, really wouldn't make a lot of sense to modern gamers... it was more about balance among players than among theoretical constructs like classes. If everyone had the same chance of rolling a given stat combination or random psionic power or picking up the object coated with XX poison, there was 'balance' or perhaps 'fairness.' AD&D still had some of the competative spirit of wargaming, I guess. Some folks even called DMs 'referees.' The modern concept of balance is almost more like an exercise in nurturing self-esteem.

but if it's anything like "all classes had a similar level of importance and made a similar level of contribution to the game across all levels", then my answer is basically "yes".

If you found AD&D balanced, there are few games you could find imbalanced - certainly 3.x and Essentials are paragons of flawless balanced compared to AD&D.

That was true of my AD&D experiences as a player and as a DM. If anything fighters and clerics where more generally important, while magic-users and thieves had more stand-out moments.

I take it you mostly played in the single-digit levels? The 'sweet spot' that kept getting mentioned as something 4e was trying to expand. If fighters are still important, you're at relatively low levels, if magic-users are having stand-out moments, you're probably at least 3rd... and if a theif is, also, then you have to have gotten out of the low-level doldrums where his skills are just pathetically low...

 

[Tony Vargas]

Still, the difference between a Mage and a Slayer is vastly less than the difference between a Fighting Man and a Magic User (of any edition).

Certainly. The degree of class imbalance re-introduced by Essentials so far is much lesser in degree than in 3.x, even post-Bo9S. Still, though different in degree, it is similar in kind. I understand that the difference is considered by some (most notably, the ones desgining it, of course) small enough to be 'worth it' to achieve the goals Essentials has. Denying an impact on balance, though, is something I can't seem to let lie.

The Mage's powers are designed to be far less plot busting, lack "I Win" buttons, and mostly operate on a plane similar to martial powers, doing similar levels of damage, etc.

Instant Friends is prettymuch an 'I win' button for some skill checks, or, potentially even simpler social Skill Challenges. But, yeah, no flat out save-or-die mechanic has been re-introduced... though, it sounds like some HoS spells are trying to evoke a bit of that feel. And, the 'expanded design space' may well have room for them.

So, my analysis would be that arguments about balance in previous versions are moot, they have nothing to teach us about that because absolutely no attempt was ever made to achieve it and it was simply not a concern. Essentials martial classes are pretty well balanced and serve as the proof that, while it may be slightly harder, you can still achieve balanced play even without all classes being AEDU.

So, basically, if you exclude 34 years of clear evidence that daily spells vs at-will sword swinging don't balance, you can conclude that they /will/ balance in Essentials... ?

I'm sorry, but if I'm going to discard decades of crystal clear evidence and common wisdom, I want some compelling, non-anecdoteal, evidence, or some very solid reasoning as to how it's even /possible/ to do what proved impossible for so long. I mean, seriously, give me something.

Like, what specific mechanic(s) compensates a Slayer for his lack of daily powers? What keeps that mechanism balanced at low levels, when AEDU classes have one daily, and higher levels when they have 4? What maintains it in long, drawn-out 'grinds' and fast, brutal 'alpha strikes?' In 8 encounter days and single-encounter days?

 

[I'm A Banana]

So, basically, if you exclude 34 years of clear evidence that daily spells vs at-will sword swinging don't balance, you can conclude that they /will/ balance in Essentials... ?

I don't think 34 years of evidence shows that dailies vs. at-wills don't balance.

I think it shows that "I swing my sword" and "I ignore travel times, see everything, summon pit fiends, and am immune to damage" don't balance.

The rate of usage has nothing to do with it. What they are capable of is the point.

And nothing in 4e is capable of the kinds of things spellcasters in early editions were capable of, even after Essentials.

So without the capability of the characters changing, I can't believe that the balance changes, since the balance rested on the different capabilities, not on the different rates of recharge.

And some of the best designers in the industry agree with me, since they made a Slayer that functions better than a Warlock or a Sorcerer, even without daily abilities.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The rate of usage has nothing to do with it. What they are capable of is the point.

You are asserting that a daily is no more powerful than an at-will or encounter of the same level?