Excerpt: The Warlord

[hong]

Totally, so it looks like no special TWF action for our little rogue…?

I don't believe it. You need TWF to play Taki.

 

[Ulthwithian]

*ROFLMAO @ Hong* Priceless.

I'll echo what a lot of people said and say I'd like to have seen at-will powers, but it's much better to have some/much crunch than no crunch.

So far, we have 2 options for Rogues, 2 options for Warlords, and _4_ options for Warlocks (the different pacts). It is theorized that the Fighter chooses between 2H and Sword-and-board, so those could be his options. The Wizard chooses among his implements.

Ranger _looks_ like it should be ranged or TWF, based on previous editions, but that's honestly all we have to go with on that score. The main concern I have with that one is that would make the Ranger's power list very schismatic; i.e., they wouldn't be nearly as interchangeable as, say, the Warlord's are.

Do we know the 'play choice' considerations for the Paladin or Cleric yet?

 

[neceros]

So (a tactical) Warlord's Favour grants +(1 + Int) to attacks to one ally until the end of the warlord's next turn.

I wonder what happens if the warlord keeps delaying.

Delay or not your turn will come back around. You can only delay your action when it's your turn, so...

 

[Nikosandros]

I think they are much more than that - although they give "recommended trained skills" the key thing that we see here is that it is sorta 'two classes in one' - the build option that you choose gives (a) a different bonus ability (b) better effects from certain powers.

We saw the same thing with Rogues (artful dodger/brutal scoundrel) where certain powers get better bonuses for one "Rogue build" or the other.

Actually, the builds are just suggestions on feats and powers to take. You are thinking of Rogue Tactics or Commanding Presence that have mechanical effects.

 

[Mirtek]

Do we know the 'play choice' considerations for the Paladin or Cleric yet?

I hope the cleric can choose between a melee and a caster build

 

[Hussar]

So (a tactical) Warlord's Favour grants +(1 + Int) to attacks to one ally until the end of the warlord's next turn.

I wonder what happens if the warlord keeps delaying.

If it's anything like 3e, nothing. You cannot delay past the end of a round.

 

[med stud]

I think clerics will have their builds defined by what god they worship. Sort of like warlocks and their pacts.

I agree with Mirtek in that it would be nice to see a caster cleric, I think D&D has lacked priests without weapons and armour for too long.

 

[Mirtek]

I agree with Mirtek in that it would be nice to see a caster cleric, I think D&D has lacked priests without weapons and armour for too long.

I have no doubt there will be a caster cleric. To me the pregen cleric is a caster cleric (even if he also has this one melee attack). I hope we will see the melee cleric who is not throwing lances/cascades of light/fire whatever

 

[Ghaerdon Fain]

I hope Multiclassing works well.

This gives me even more hope for my Warlord/Wizard (Warmage) character

After listening to Andy Collins on The Tome ep 52, it seems that we might be waiting a while before multi-classing makes an appearance. The 4E team just doesn't want to have a swiss army knife character. So I doubt it will be in.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Yeah, they recognized the problem, but 3e recognized the problem, too. You had bards and druids and paladins who could heal here and there, enough to use wands for the party at least (and wands were better than a cleric in between encounters), and later had shamans and favored souls and whatnots.

'm sorry, I see no equivalency in requiring a wizard, to requiring a cleric, in 3.x.

A wizard will be helpful, and add nice oomph, but I do not see why. (At the levels we've currently seen) be necessary.

A cleric in 3e was helpful, and added nice oomph, but it wasn't necessary. A PC party could easily get by without one, they'd just lack certain combat oomph and would have to use different tactics -- exactly the same thing Andy Collins said that a 4e party without a wizard would have to deal with.

Any problem that there was about this in 3e is not solved in 4e, and telling us about how the Warlord is in because the party needs more leader options just points out some of that 4e schizophrenia -- "Roles need options, so the Warlord is in! Iconicness takes precedence over options, so Controller II is out!"

Ah?