Class Compendium: The Warlord (Marshal)

[mneme]

Re actual play experience - my E-Thief certainly pumps out vastly more damage than the other Striker, a PHB/PHB-3 Minotaur Ranger who dual-wields bastard swords, but is mostly good for attracting enemy attacks, which is nice for activating the Fighter's mark. While I'm throwing Mr Pointy every round for d4+2d8+12, avg 23.5, he's attacking with a much lower attack bonus and if he hits he's doing 2 x 1d10+1 with twin strike, avg 13. Usually he only hits once though, while I never miss.

A couple of things: 1. You can't really look at ranger at will damage without counting Quarry. He's at least hitting for 1d10+d6+1, and that's if he hasn't taken any feats to buff damage.

What level is this? You presumably have a magic item (or you're going to have problems rethrowing that dagger), but it seems like Mr. Ranger doesn't have much adding to damage; the ranger takes off once he's got good bonuses to hit and damage so his dual attack (and out of turn attacks) can do their jobs--a magic weapon, yes, but also iron armbands (which he gets to double), etc. Once you get to 7th or 8th level, assuming you're both kitted up, things should even up (or worse).

 

[Tony Vargas]

Okay assume wizards comes out with Double-strike stance, that allows a slacker to make two attacks with a balancing penalty.

No. Sorry, you don't get to make up.

This minor, non-structural addition takes your argument about bow-rangers and destroys it. It's not structural.

Not at all. My argument is about resource management. /Your/ counter was to bring up differences among roles, which applies regardless of resource management, so was a non-starter from the beginning. It was amusing that your point about role differences /also/ highlighted the fact that the Essentials aproach to martial builds actually /deepens/ those differences.

It really seems your entire argument is that If you DM runs games that always allow for extended rests after every fight, the Slayer is underpowered.

Imbalances would also exist in two or perhaps even three-encounter days; and would also exist in the other direction in campaigns that tended to feature very long encounters (in rounds) and very long days (in terms of encounters/day).

4e retains robust class balance if the DM and Player styles tend to push a campaign consistently towards few encounters/day or short (in rounds) combats - or the reverse more grueling days and longer combats. Essentials does not. Essentials delivers less robust class balance than 4e. It is a step backwards in that regard.

While this is true, that game is a degenerate example of a 4e game. It is run in a way that is counter to explicit design tenets of 4e.

It is a rather common style, actually. You often see DMs who have noticed the encounter balance issues that crop up when you have few or one encounter per day, posting, looking for advice on re-balancing their encounters, changing the definition of 'day' or otherwise dealing with the issue. 4e isn't quite perfect for DMs with that style, as they have to adjust encounter balance. Essentials is worse for them, because they'll have class imbalanced to deal with, too.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Nope. You are incorrect, he was comparing slayers, which are strikers, to either weaponmasters, who are defenders, or wizards and clerics, which are controllers and leaders, respectively.

I did, in fact, analyze the Slayer vs the Barbarian - both Strikers. (I can see how Ageri would make that mistake, though, since the Slayer is a Fighter, and /other/ Fighter builds are all defenders. Though, in other threads, I have extensively compared the at-will abilities of the Knight with the AEDU Guardian Fighter - which is a Defender v Defender comparison, and may well be what he was thinking of, since he was on the other side of that debate.)

I've also compared, in much more general terms, AEDU classes in general, and Essential Martial classes, in general.

This is the second time I've pointed this out to you.

If he mentioned knights, or rogues, his point is severely weakened. Thus why he didn't mention them.

Also, you seem to indicate that under some circumstances, AEDU characters can be better, and in some AEU characters can be better. Isn't that balanced on the whole?

That would be a delicate 'balance of imbalances' - the model AD&D used.

This hinges on the exact level of sameness between class power breakdowns being crucial to balance.

Given the levels of balance delivered by past versions of D&D, vs that delivered by 4e, it seems likely that putting classes all on basically the same resource management schedule is the 'only' way to achieve robust class balance. It's also not difficult to see the underlying mechanisms of how and why class balance is degraded in the absence of such a structure.

You know, the thing that many people excoriated 4e over.

Yes, there were many who disliked the lengths 4e went to in achieving a good level of class balance. Some, presumably, because they dislike class balance, in the first place.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Is it easier to compare balance between classes of the same resource structure? Absolutely, yes.

Is a change in resource structure going to cause 3e style breakdowns in class balance? Absolutely not.

Oh, there's no question that the Essentials aproach to class design is going to deliver less robust class balance than 4e's did, and that its balance will be fragile in the same way that 3e's and AD&D's were. The only question is one of degree. Will it be as bad as 3e? Probably not. Will it be trivial? Probably not. Will it be 'close enough' for some people (especially those who /like/ some of the feel and system-mastery options that greater class imbalance provides) and not for others? Yes, definitely.

Is (precise balance + same resource structure) more or less valuable than (rough balance + varied resource structure)? Judgment call.

Only if there's something on the other side of the equation. Giving up class balance for the sake of having less balanced classes is only 'good' if you /like/ giving some players the chance to dominate a game or wreck a campaign (and there's no doubt there are many who enjoy just that - if only as a purely theoretical CharOp exercise). OTOH, giving up class balance to make the system more aproachable to new players, or to deliver more faithful simulation of genre or some such is a valid trade-off - and whether it was a good trade is the subjective 'judgement call.'

 

[Tony Vargas]

(BTW, I almost didn't reply, because your post was so reasonable, and I'd mostly be quibbling, clarifying or agreeing... But, I realized, if only reply to the less reasonable posts, what am I encouraging?)

It is certainly true that balancing different resource structures is much harder than balancing within a single type of class design. And so I can get your concern, here, about Essentials classes. The potential for a lack of balance is there.

But... I don't think it is there in actuality. I think they have managed to find that balance. I don't see any significant disparity, nor do I feel they are balanced in an older style by making them strong at low level, weak at high - while there are fluctuations, I feel they aimed for a balance across all levels, and largely achieved it.

While I'm sure that class balance has been degraded in Essentials, I'm less certain it's badly degraded. I suspect there may be some aspect of better at low level than high... at least, better at low-Heroic than high-Heroic, because AEDU goes from 1 daily at first to 3 at ninth, while the daily-less Martial characters don't really get much of a boost to their at-will abilities over the same levels (they get a new stance at Paragon, IIRC).

And, while balance may well have been achieved, at a point - like the suggested 3-5 encounters/day (or the overly-precise 17 rounds that my Slayer/Barbarian analysis came up with) - it's necessarily more delicate. Leading to imbalance if a campaign strays too far in one direction too consistently, or a 'balance of imbalances' if it strays just a little or more evenly in both directions.

And perfect balance wasn't achievable previously, either - Warlocks, when the PHB came out (especially Star Pact) were considered underpowered compared to other strikers, despite an identical resource structure.

Very true. Two points though: 1) The Warlock, Cleric & Paladin all had some issues early on, because being split-primary cut down their power choices substantially compared to single-primary classes with the same number of powers (the Ranger avoided that problem by the simple expedient of having virtually all powers useable with either stat). So, it was a different sort of balance problem entirely (and, one that Essentials may have re-introduced, by introducing builds that can't use prior build's attack powers, again, splitting a class's choices). 2) Just because 4e wasn't /perfect/ doesn't mean that it's perfectly OK for Essentials to be /worse/. Really, it means that Essentials could have at least tried to be no less imperfect, or even aimed higher.

any disparities are on a vastly smaller scale than the differences between fighter vs wizard in earlier editions. The two situations may be comparable, but the certainly aren't equivalent.

True. While Essential's impact on class balance is real, it's hard to say how extreme a problem it will be. Likely, just as some campaigns managed to retain a semblance of balance in 3.x, many Essentials tables will never notice the balance issues, even if they run into them. And, even if they notice them, might attribute them to something else...

 

[TwoSix]

Only if there's something on the other side of the equation. Giving up class balance for the sake of having less balanced classes is only 'good' if you /like/ giving some players the chance to dominate a game or wreck a campaign (and there's no doubt there are many who enjoy just that - if only as a purely theoretical CharOp exercise). OTOH, giving up class balance to make the system more aproachable to new players, or to deliver more faithful simulation of genre or some such is a valid trade-off - and whether it was a good trade is the subjective 'judgement call.'

Well, giving up class balance is a strong way to put it. I would rather say de-emphasizing precise balance.

And yes, I'll accept less-balanced classes, not simply for the sake of being less-balanced, but accepting that lower values of balance may be a necessary prerequisite to see experimental design that excites me to try that game mechanic.

After all, sometimes it's your flaws that make you beautiful.

 

[MrMyth]

(BTW, I almost didn't reply, because your post was so reasonable, and I'd mostly be quibbling, clarifying or agreeing... But, I realized, if only reply to the less reasonable posts, what am I encouraging?)

Hey, no worries! Honestly, being able to engage in discussions where both sides can reasonably disagree while still acknowledging and understanding the other side's point of view is, I think, an example of ENWorld at it's finest.

And, while balance may well have been achieved, at a point - like the suggested 3-5 encounters/day (or the overly-precise 17 rounds that my Slayer/Barbarian analysis came up with) - it's necessarily more delicate. Leading to imbalance if a campaign strays too far in one direction too consistently, or a 'balance of imbalances' if it strays just a little or more evenly in both directions.

It's true - though, myself, I've always found healing surges to be more of the dividing line than daily powers. A group might press on without dailies, but will be very cautious about doing so when out of surges. And that hasn't really changed.

(Except, of course, we've got the upcoming Vampire class which does mess with that! Though it sounds like it has a decent mechanic for keeping its healing limitations on par with the rest of the party.)

Even so, I'm sure that it will indeed impact some groups, even so. The thing is, I think so many other factors do so as well that the impact felt by this will be slight. I've played in games where we'll go weeks between encounters. In others, we'll delve through 7-8 encounters in a row. I've had both experiences in the same campaign! I think there are already much more significant factors at work, and they vary from group to group, adventure to adventure, campaign to campaign.

Very true. Two points though: 1) The Warlock, Cleric & Paladin all had some issues early on, because being split-primary cut down their power choices substantially compared to single-primary classes with the same number of powers (the Ranger avoided that problem by the simple expedient of having virtually all powers useable with either stat). So, it was a different sort of balance problem entirely (and, one that Essentials may have re-introduced, by introducing builds that can't use prior build's attack powers, again, splitting a class's choices). 2) Just because 4e wasn't /perfect/ doesn't mean that it's perfectly OK for Essentials to be /worse/. Really, it means that Essentials could have at least tried to be no less imperfect, or even aimed higher.

Yeah, my point wasn't that it was the same disparity of balance, but that numerous types of imbalance can already exist in the system. The split-stat classes. Weapon damage vs caster damage, especially for strikers early in the edition. Or the difference between direct striker mechanics like Quarry and Curse vs the harder to quantify benefits of the Barbarian. Unless we keep each class absolutely identical to the last, fluctuations in ability will exist.

Now, all that said? Your point - that just because perfection can't be reached, is no reason not to try - is a good one. Other imbalances shouldn't excuse letting worse ones crop up in Essentials.

But my thought is that any issues from Essentials ones is not actually worse than similar issues that have cropped up before. Pretty much every new release, we've heard that one new class is going to be so much better than all the rest, or so much worse. And rarely is that the case - they aren't all equal, but they are all on par and capable of playing the same game, in the way that the imbalances of the past couldn't always achieve.

Honestly, it is possible you are correct - an Essentials character vs a non-Essentials character might work fine side by side for one encounter, but reveal underlying flaws over the course of a campaign. I don't think it is likely to happen... but I also don't think we will know for sure until much more time has gone by with such classes in action alongside each other.

For myself, I do like to see WotC experiment, even as I can understand concern over what those experiments will do to the game. And, honestly, my main concerns with Essentials is more over the ever-greater focus on Expertise and other super-powered feats, and what that does to the game - so it isn't as though I think the WotC design team can do no wrong.

But in this case, I haven't seen any signs that they failed in their goal - to create new builds whose resource allowance is different than the rest, while remaining fundamentally balanced with the earlier options. But I could be wrong - time will tell, far more than any math or theory we can lay out on the table right now.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Well, giving up class balance is a strong way to put it. I would rather say de-emphasizing precise balance.

Sorry, should have said giving up /some/ class balance.

And yes, I'll accept less-balanced classes, not simply for the sake of being less-balanced, but accepting that lower values of balance may be a necessary prerequisite to see experimental design that excites me to try that game mechanic.

'Experimental design' is an interesting way of putting it. I've been wondering if maybe 4e really needs to formally split into a simplified 'Essentials' and an 'Advanced' version. Maybe it really needs to settle into an 'Essentials' on-ramp, a 'Standard' balanced version, and an 'Extended' version with many more novel or experimental mechanics, the most workable of which eventually get added to the 'Standard.' A little much, maybe, but it might go a way towards satisfying a broader fan base.

After all, sometimes it's your flaws that make you beautiful.

That's a truth that many seem uncomfortable admitting. It's clear, for instance, that a lot of 4e hate was from 3e fans who loved 3e for the very flaws 4e fixed. The 'sacred cows.'

Doesn't mean the sacred cows weren't flaws or that they hadn't been holding the game back for decades, but it's worth recognizing.

It's true - though, myself, I've always found healing surges to be more of the dividing line than daily powers. A group might press on without dailies, but will be very cautious about doing so when out of surges. And that hasn't really changed.

(Except, of course, we've got the upcoming Vampire class which does mess with that! Though it sounds like it has a decent mechanic for keeping its healing limitations on par with the rest of the party.)

Joy.. Surges are certainly a good indicator for when it's time to rest. (They could also be said to be a 'daily' resource - so if classes with dailies consistently had fewer surges than those without, maybe there could be some 'balancing' there, too? Meh, probably not.) But a DM whose story calls for a very long adventuring 'day' would have to scale back encounters, which would mean the surges would be burned through more slowly. And, if daily resources become a source of class imbalance, some players may well be tempted to emphasise the situations that make thier class overpowerform - by insisting on resting frequently if they have dailies, for instance (certainly a very common thing in 3e).

Yeah, my point wasn't that it was the same disparity of balance, but that numerous types of imbalance can already exist in the system. The split-stat classes. Weapon damage vs caster damage, especially for strikers early in the edition. Or the difference between direct striker mechanics like Quarry and Curse vs the harder to quantify benefits of the Barbarian. Unless we keep each class absolutely identical to the last, fluctuations in ability will exist.

Nod. Since some sources of imbalance are unavoidable - or 'worth it' in some way - it only makes that much more sense to avoid it when possible. Aside from the desire to have casters be superior (OK, 'feel different') from non-casters, I don't think any of essentials other goals (simpler to build/play classes, being the big one) would have been any harder to accomplish while retaining AEDU as an underlying commonality for all classes, even if some builds put it 'behind the curtain' in some way.

Now, all that said? Your point - that just because perfection can't be reached, is no reason not to try - is a good one. Other imbalances shouldn't excuse letting worse ones crop up in Essentials.

But my thought is that any issues from Essentials ones is not actually worse than similar issues that have cropped up before.

Even if they're not worse, if they're /in addition/, they're still making the game worse. If Essentials had degreaded class balance a little, but fixed the 4e issues with encounter balance, for instance, that might be judged desireable or a wash. The things that Essentials improved, however - like the different format or the more mechanical differentiation of classes - have been highly subjective, and could have been done without messing with class balance.

A good hypothetical example would be eliminating dailies: Eliminating dailies /entirely/ from the game would improve encounter balance. Assuming the class's various remaining powers were still balanced (or adjusted to be balanced), that would be an improvement in balance. But, it would come at the cost of the much more subjective feel of 'narrative control' or 'drama' that dailies bring to the table.

Pretty much every new release, we've heard that one new class is going to be so much better than all the rest, or so much worse. And rarely is that the case - they aren't all equal, but they are all on par and capable of playing the same game, in the way that the imbalances of the past couldn't always achieve.

Often, a new class is noticeably sub-par, like the Seeker. If a new class isn't made pretty butch out the gate, the lack of potential synergies in its smaller power list will make it less effective than older classes with more support.

One direction Essentials seems to be moving in that might not be all bad, is towards more builds of existing classes, rather than more new (and harder to balance) classes. Which is a good idea, as long as the new builds can leverage enough of the existing content for their class.

Honestly, it is possible you are correct - an Essentials character vs a non-Essentials character might work fine side by side for one encounter, but reveal underlying flaws over the course of a campaign. I don't think it is likely to happen... but I also don't think we will know for sure until much more time has gone by with such classes in action alongside each other.

We'll know for sure, years down the line. When people are forming a consensus that this or that class 'was always a bad design....'

For myself, I do like to see WotC experiment, even as I can understand concern over what those experiments will do to the game. And, honestly, my main concerns with Essentials is more over the ever-greater focus on Expertise and other super-powered feats, and what that does to the game - so it isn't as though I think the WotC design team can do no wrong.

Ah, 'experiment' again. It's a nice idea, but we need a secure location for these experiments, so no innocents are caught in the blast radius. I certainly agree about the odd solution to the complaint that Expertise feats were too 'must have' and therfore flavorless non-option 'taxes.' Make them /even better/. (!?!?!)

But in this case, I haven't seen any signs that they failed in their goal - to create new builds whose resource allowance is different than the rest, while remaining fundamentally balanced with the earlier options. But I could be wrong - time will tell, far more than any math or theory we can lay out on the table right now.

I remain unconvinced that 'reamaining fundamentally balanced' /is/ part of the goal. I think that balance was knowingly sacrificed. Either as a trade-off to meet other design goals, or for it's own sake, to woo the fled-to-pathfinder set (or both).

 

[Aegeri]

Nope. You are incorrect, he was comparing slayers, which are strikers, to either weaponmasters, who are defenders, or wizards and clerics, which are controllers and leaders, respectively.

You should go and read his posts again, because he actually didn't do that.

Also, you seem to indicate that under some circumstances, AEDU characters can be better, and in some AEU characters can be better. Isn't that balanced on the whole?

No, because this ends by epic tier. If you read my post, you'd notice I bought up how easily epic characters can recycle their encounter and daily powers. E-martial classes keep up due to being reliable all encounter and not having limited resources. When the classes that are "balanced" against them are no longer so "limited" resource wise - the E-martial classes begin to fall behind very quickly. I would far rather have a Barbarian that can recycle 2-3 times in one encounter a 7[W] daily power with a strong effect, than a Knight or Slayer. Especially when the Barbarian could throw out a 7[W] daily like Stone Tempest Rage (the one with the 18-20 crit stance) recycle it (for later), action point and throw out Hurricane of Blades for 3x [2]W attacks (all with an 18-20 crit range). Did I mention that the Barbarian can charge with Stone Tempest Rage to get the advantage of all the charge cheese in the game as well? Oh I only just did? Consider that mentioned.

Bearing in mind that unlike at previous tiers, that Barbarian is more than capable of getting BACK that daily for later use with certain EDs. It's hard for a slayer - even with how reliable they are - to keep up with sheer potential damage output by this point. Especially as the 18-20 crit range is just amazing as an effect, with knocking prone so he can get immediate use out of headman's chop on the HoB even better. Throw on frost cheese to complete the hilarity and we can be up to getting 3 attacks at around +10 extra damage, with an 18-20 crit range, with combat advantage and have got all our delicious charge cheese just moments before. Best of all, unlike at other tiers this class can now recycle that and do it all again next encounter - fun isn't it?

Now this isn't to say the Slayer is useless - his plunking every day DPR is "workmanlike". He also gets arguably one of the best benefits of out of turn free attacks from a warlord because they aren't dependent on anything else. But there does become a gulf in power between the "basic" martial classes and the regular classes. This is nowhere near the 3.x divide where at high levels you were pretty much pointless if you weren't a caster, but it is there. At this point, while I think this will have an effect I have yet to see anyone play an E-class into epic tier in one of my campaigns. The only E-classes I do have are an executioner (who isn't quite as basic as MBA spamming), a mage and a sentinel. So I'm not going to see what effect this has beyond theorycraft at the moment - but I suspect it might not be entirely pretty.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The potential problems of the Slayer in Epic may be self-limitting, as a player is pretty likely to have learned the game well enough to be hankering for a more complex class long before then.

I mean, the problem of a class being overshadowed is /always/ self limiting, as peolple just give up and play a stronger class, but over and above that, the Slayer's simple/beginner nature may keep it out of Epic a lot.