Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 6097435" data-attributes="member: 7006">True... but I do wonder how many people are going to be pissed off because of mechanical concerns, as opposed to fluff concerns?Is the need for a Warlord in the game there not because of character concepts that the Warlord can cover... but purely because of a need for more classes that can &quot;heal&quot;, and more importantly, classes that can &quot;heal&quot; without using magic?That seems to always be the main argument for having the Warlord-- a class in the game that can replenish hit points without the use of magic.&nbsp; And that's really a game mechanics concern, and not a conceptual story concern.&nbsp; Yes... using tactics and/or inspiration is a clever way of explaining and describing why there is a non-magical healing mechanic... but in both those cases, the mechanic came first.&nbsp; In no way did WotC (when designing 4E) say &quot;We need to make an inspirational, William Wallace type of warrior class.&nbsp; But if we do so, what kind of mechanics should we give it?&quot;&nbsp; Instead, the thinking was &quot;We need to make a warrior class that can let players spend their healing surges.&nbsp; What kind of flavor can we give to represent that?&quot;I think we can all agree (and Mike and Rodney seemed to also) that creating a &quot;tactical system&quot; within the Fighter's Maneuvers is easy-peasy.&nbsp; Creating a &quot;Fighter Tactician&quot; won't be any real issue as they design it, and thus that one half of the 4E Warlord can be covered without any problem.&nbsp; It won't have the class name &quot;Warlord&quot;... but the character would pretty much be just that.&nbsp; And I would suspect that that's probably not going to be a real issue for most people.&nbsp; Because the &quot;tactics&quot; and &quot;buffing&quot; aspects of the Warlord are not what cause the most consternation.Thus, we come back to the real issue... which is healing.&nbsp; And the question which is &quot;How much ingrained healing ability (flavored as inspiration) does a class have to have to warrant having its own class?&quot;&nbsp; That's the issue.&nbsp; Because Mike was right... you could easily take the Fighter with one of the &quot;tactical&quot; maneuver builds and then select the Healer specialty, to get most of the abilities of the Warlord.&nbsp; But is the Healer specialty enough for many 4E players?&nbsp; I'm willing to bet that... No... they are going to want a fuller suite of &quot;healing-like&quot; abilities above and beyond a simple Specialty.&nbsp; Which I can certainly understand... because it mimics the argument of whether you need a Paladin class when you can make a Fighter/Cleric, or whether you need a Ranger class when you can make a Fighter or Rogue with an outdoorsy Background?Is the flavor concept of the Warlord strong enough and different enough (from the fighter especially) to need to have its own class so that a player can layer his Warlord with various Backgrounds and Specialities... as opposed to the Warlord being more of a Background and Specialty itself that gets layered on top of a Fighter?&nbsp; Just like the question of the Assassin as well, I should wonder.Paladin and Ranger are worth full classes, but Warlord and Assassin are not?&nbsp; That will be a make-or-break issue for those players who are fans of those respective classes.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DEFCON 1, post: 6097435, member: 7006"] True... but I do wonder how many people are going to be pissed off because of mechanical concerns, as opposed to fluff concerns? Is the need for a Warlord in the game there not because of character concepts that the Warlord can cover... but purely because of a need for more classes that can "heal", and more importantly, classes that can "heal" without using magic? That seems to always be the main argument for having the Warlord-- a class in the game that can replenish hit points without the use of magic. And that's really a game mechanics concern, and not a conceptual story concern. Yes... using tactics and/or inspiration is a clever way of [I]explaining[/I] and [I]describing[/I] why there is a non-magical healing mechanic... but in both those cases, the mechanic came first. In no way did WotC (when designing 4E) say "We need to make an inspirational, William Wallace type of warrior class. But if we do so, what kind of mechanics should we give it?" Instead, the thinking was "We need to make a warrior class that can let players spend their healing surges. What kind of flavor can we give to represent that?" I think we can all agree (and Mike and Rodney seemed to also) that creating a "tactical system" within the Fighter's Maneuvers is easy-peasy. Creating a "Fighter Tactician" won't be any real issue as they design it, and thus that one half of the 4E Warlord can be covered without any problem. It won't have the class name "Warlord"... but the character would pretty much be just that. And I would suspect that that's probably not going to be a real issue for most people. Because the "tactics" and "buffing" aspects of the Warlord are not what cause the most consternation. Thus, we come back to the real issue... which is healing. And the question which is "How much ingrained healing ability (flavored as [I]inspiration[/I]) does a class have to have to warrant having its own class?" That's the issue. Because Mike was right... you could easily take the Fighter with one of the "tactical" maneuver builds and then select the Healer specialty, to get most of the abilities of the Warlord. But is the Healer specialty [I]enough[/I] for many 4E players? I'm willing to bet that... No... they are going to want a fuller suite of "healing-like" abilities above and beyond a simple Specialty. Which I can certainly understand... because it mimics the argument of whether you need a Paladin class when you can make a Fighter/Cleric, or whether you need a Ranger class when you can make a Fighter or Rogue with an outdoorsy Background? Is the flavor concept of the Warlord strong enough and different enough (from the fighter especially) to need to have its own class so that a player can layer his Warlord with various Backgrounds and Specialities... as opposed to the Warlord being more of a Background and Specialty itself that gets layered on top of a Fighter? Just like the question of the Assassin as well, I should wonder. Paladin and Ranger are worth full classes, but Warlord and Assassin are not? That will be a make-or-break issue for those players who are fans of those respective classes. [/QUOTE]

Verification