Excerpt: The Warlord

[pawsplay]

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.

Honestly, to me, a cleric will always be someone who gained spellcasting at second level.

 

[Cirex]

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.

What kind of tactics? Avoid anything "hard-hitting" so you don't have to relly on healing?

I'm sure of something though...when one of the PCs is a cleric, I design more brutal encounters and when they got no active healer, combats are softer and shorter.

 

[Steely Dan]

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 believe they have stated multi-classing will be in 4th Ed from the start.

I heard there will be a table for true multi-classing, and ways to get powers from other classes via Feat Training.

 

[Steely Dan]

Honestly, to me, a cleric will always be someone who gained spellcasting at second level.

And for me, the ranger will always be someone who started with 2 HD at first level (and the monk)!

 

[MaelStorm]

/snip
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?

If you listen the podcast again, the main reason why Controller II is out is because they wanted the new edition to introduce a brand new class: that's why we have the Warlord in PH I. The other reason is a smokescreen, because if true, they would have given us two controller classes?

 

[I'm A Banana]

What kind of tactics? Avoid anything "hard-hitting" so you don't have to relly on healing?

Yeah, there's that. There's the idea of "play defensively," ratcheting up your AC and CON score, using classes like the Paladin and Monk and Bard and Druid that help survivability, getting better armor before you get better weapons, using the "fight defensively" rules, and Combat Expertise, launching your Barbarian Rage only when you are seriously wounded....

If you listen the podcast again, the main reason why Controller II is out is because they wanted the new edition to introduce a brand new class: that's why we have the Warlord in PH I.

Well, even if there was a finite number of "class slots," you'd have to compare the Controller II against ALL the existing classes, not just the Warlord.

Controller II over a warlock?
Over a ranger?
Over the paladin?

Still, the point remains that they didn't solve any problem of "requiring" a certain class. I'm basically okay with that, but I wish they wouldn't be claiming to be fixing something that they really didn't fix.

 

[lutecius]

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

yeah, like the b would need that, on top of her +40 speed bonus and her broken per encounter "Ninja Canon Fury" (that's sooo 4e).
Balance-wise, she is not a rogue, she's a 3eCOD. hopefully they'll solve that in 4e.

 

[brehobit]

No cleric in 3e

The game I'm running lacks anyone capable of throwing a healing spell. Level 3 and we have 2 wizards, 1 ranger, 1 fighter, and an NPC rogue. Ranger has been burning through a wand of CLW for out-of-combat healing. And nearly no healing happens in combat (a couple of potions thus far).

It seems pretty survivable if the DM makes wands of CLW buyable.

Mark

 

[MaelStorm]

Well, even if there was a finite number of "class slots," you'd have to compare the Controller II against ALL the existing classes, not just the Warlord.

Controller II over a warlock?
Over a ranger?
Over the paladin?

Still, the point remains that they didn't solve any problem of "requiring" a certain class. I'm basically okay with that, but I wish they wouldn't be claiming to be fixing something that they really didn't fix.

Over a Warlock I think, which is another new class if we compare 3E PH I with 4E PH I.

 

[hong]

yeah, like the b would need that, on top of her +40 speed bonus and her broken per encounter "Ninja Canon Fury" (that's sooo 4e).
Balance-wise, she is not a rogue, she's a 3eCOD. hopefully they'll solve that in 4e.

Eh, Rocket-Propelled Ninja ATTACK! is not per-encounter, it's at will!