D&D 4.5E (Not Essentials)

[Garthanos]

@C4 Where are you sharing your work these days? I always liked the name "Champion" as an alternative to the Warlord.

That's my alternate for a Paladin, the King's/Queens Champion.

They take the place of X, and fight in their name.
Lancelot being an example.

Champion is mentioned as one of the roles Lugh Lamfada professed
to in much the same vein as the above, however Lugh actually did act
as a Warlord in practice, but I feel they are distinct.

Warlord is also similar to the native american War Chief who acted
as a battle leader.

 

[C4]

@C4 Where are you sharing your work these days? I always liked the name "Champion" as an alternative to the Warlord.

I've been posting my PoL discussions on the dedicated 4Enclave forum. Legally Legiting My Clone is my most recent topic.

 

[C4]

You could always split the difference when it comes to naming powers. For instance, "Healing War Cry" or "[Insert Foreign Word] Charge". One word to remind the player what the power does, and a flavor word or phrase to keep it separate.

Hm, I like this idea...but I suspect that as soon as the movie-physics crowd reads 'healing' in a martial power, they'll think of Mike Mearls and 'shouting wounds closed.' Maybe I'm wrong though.

Maybe 'rejuvenating war cry' is ambiguous enough to work...

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Hm, I like this idea...but I suspect that as soon as the movie-physics crowd reads 'healing' in a martial power, they'll think of Mike Mearls and 'shouting wounds closed.' Maybe I'm wrong though.

Maybe 'rejuvenating war cry' is ambiguous enough to work...

Rejuvenating, heartening, invigorating... Maybe not the last one due to cheesy temp hp fighter build confusion.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Offtopic, Harlequin Style turned my Bravelord into a tank. +3 to all defences meant that even if the monster didn't attack they weren't going to kill my Warlord (if they did then they'd take a shot to the face and still have the high defences).

Ontopic I'd butcher more sacred cows.

1: Death to ability scores.

2: Keep the Slayer, the Knight, the Thief, and the Rangers from Essentials. And the Elementalist. People need things that are easy to play. Possibly tweak the hunter quite a bit.

3: A Quick Combat Resolution System where damage is done directly to hit points.

4: Bring back rituals.

 

[Will Doyle]

My dream 4.5 would include the following (some of which have been mentioned already):

• Don't add half level to skill checks, making DCs more consistent.
• Triggered actions can't be used in response to triggered actions.
• Clarify the order for start-of-turn effects.
• Positive conditions as well as negative conditions.
• Duration either lasts until the end of the attacker's next turn, or until save ends.
• Get rid of all powers that grant minor conditional bonuses and penalties for a turn, or modify them to use conditions instead.
• Pool of core powers for each power source, modified in consistent ways by class. Small list of signature powers for each class - perhaps given automatically by build.
• Minor actions only ever used for key class powers (hunter's quarry, warlock's curse, etc), or for sustaining powers. Minor actions such as opening doors, readying weapons, etc all free.
• An action point every encounter.
• Consistent solo rules, e.g. all solos have an aura that is nullified by a stunning or dazing attack.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Offtopic, Harlequin Style turned my Bravelord into a tank. +3 to all defences meant that even if the monster didn't attack they weren't going to kill my Warlord (if they did then they'd take a shot to the face and still have the high defences).

1) Warlords are leaders. That feat makes warlords a worse leader, as the prerequisite for turning Brash Strike into a leader power (being free attacked) comes up less with the feat. (Bravura warlords are a bit tougher than "classic" warlords anyway. If the player is afraid of getting clocked when they use that power, they should use another power that turn. Or not play a bravura warlord.)

2) Tanking isn't about being tough. Being tough is a requirement to be a tank, because you draw heat. Warlords have no ability to draw heat or punish enemies for attacking their friends. Being tough for it's own sake is just about raising your power level, and in this case it also weakened your leadership ability. In other words, simply being hard to kill doesn't make you a tank.

I maintain it's a bad feat for warlords. I'd as soon take a feat for rogues that boosts their AC by a lot for a turn, but inflicts the weakened condition on them for a turn. It does the same thing; exchange your primary combat role in exchange for not dying.

Harlequin Style is far from the only bad rules element in the bloat, and there were bad things in previous edition bloat too, but when the bloat gets that bad, it's time to bow out with class.

 

[Neonchameleon]

1) Warlords are leaders. That feat makes warlords a worse leader, as the prerequisite for turning Brash Strike into a leader power (being free attacked) comes up less with the feat. (Bravura warlords are a bit tougher than "classic" warlords anyway. If the player is afraid of getting clocked when they use that power, they should use another power that turn. Or not play a bravura warlord.)

2) Tanking isn't about being tough. Being tough is a requirement to be a tank, because you draw heat. Warlords have no ability to draw heat or punish enemies for attacking their friends. Being tough for it's own sake is just about raising your power level, and in this case it also weakened your leadership ability. In other words, simply being hard to kill doesn't make you a tank.

1: And? It fitted the character - a lead from the front warlord wearing scale armour and carrying a large shield.

2: Warlords have every bit as much ability to tank as fighters did in 3.X when not going for trip and not using the Bo9S. Is it a full replacement for the fighter? No. Is it enough to hold the flank or rear when we're outflanked, or to play sweeper behind the fighter so people have problems ganking the mage? Yes.

Did it make my character significantly more effective at the role he chose (think Leonidas in 300)? Yes. Leading isn't about healing. Sometimes it's about setting the battlefield to get the best you can out of people. And for keeping enemies off the ranger and the wizard when we had a weak melee line it really helped. Would I recommend it to all bravura warlords? No. To some? It suited that character.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

1) Warlords are leaders. That feat makes warlords a worse leader, as the prerequisite for turning Brash Strike into a leader power (being free attacked) comes up less with the feat. (Bravura warlords are a bit tougher than "classic" warlords anyway. If the player is afraid of getting clocked when they use that power, they should use another power that turn. Or not play a bravura warlord.)

2) Tanking isn't about being tough. Being tough is a requirement to be a tank, because you draw heat. Warlords have no ability to draw heat or punish enemies for attacking their friends. Being tough for it's own sake is just about raising your power level, and in this case it also weakened your leadership ability. In other words, simply being hard to kill doesn't make you a tank.

I maintain it's a bad feat for warlords. I'd as soon take a feat for rogues that boosts their AC by a lot for a turn, but inflicts the weakened condition on them for a turn. It does the same thing; exchange your primary combat role in exchange for not dying.

Harlequin Style is far from the only bad rules element in the bloat, and there were bad things in previous edition bloat too, but when the bloat gets that bad, it's time to bow out with class.

It seems to me Harlequin Style might just be a bad rules element for Warlords, because the effect for Deft Strike for example sounds pretty good.

 

[Dungeoneer]

My dream 4.5 would include the following (some of which have been mentioned already):

• Don't add half level to skill checks, making DCs more consistent.

I'd go a lot farther. The 'Trained' bonus needs to be drastically reduced. In general, skill bonuses need to fall inside a narrower envelope.

At first level, it's by no means inconceivable that the gnome rogue in your party has a +11 Stealth check while the dwarf cleric in heavy armor has -1. That's a 12 point swing already, and it's only going to get worse as the party levels. With those numbers, a DC 15 stealth check is extremely difficult for the cleric and almost impossible to fail for the rogue.

As people were noting in a recent thread on level 27 characters, skill challenges become very dangerous in epic tier play as the gaps widen enormously!

The simple fix is to tighten the numbers up and then not have them advance with level. A more interesting fix might be to allow players to train in new skills as they level. Of course this might simply turn into an arms race as the rogue trains 'stealth' every time.

I'm not really wedded to a specific approach but there's gotta be a better way.