Excerpt: The Warlord

[Sojorn]

Inspiring Word
Using the inspiring word power, warlords can grant their comrades additional resilience with nothing more than a shout of encouragement.

Seeing as it uses the same naming format as healing word and is conspicuously absent in crunch, I'm guessing this is the Warlord's main healing power.

 

[Ten]

Hmmm, I may have missed something on the earlier classes, but it just struck me now how int plays no role in determining your class skills.

Trained Skills: From the class skills list below, choose four trained skills at 1st level.
Class Skills: Athletics (Str), Diplomacy (Cha), Endurance (Con), Heal (Wis), History (Int), Intimidate (Cha)

 

[Sir Brennen]

gains a +2 power bonus to AC against the target’s attacks

gain a +1 power bonus to all defenses until the end of the encounter

gains a +2 power bonus to attack rolls against the target until the end of your next turn

So, is this how the plethora of stacking bonuses from 3E going to be addressed? Powers grant a power bonus, regardless of class? I'm guessing power bonuses don't stack with each other.

Interesting.

 

[breschau]

I would assume "inspiring word" is pretty much the same as "healing word". Which would put them on the same/similar level.

There's that, and...

Warlord Overview

Characteristics: You are a strong warrior in melee, able to stand beside the fighter or paladin in your party. Your powers grant allies immediate actions (usually moves or attacks), provide bonuses to attack or defense, and grant healing in the midst of battle.

This.

 

[Celebrim]

I would assume "inspiring word" is pretty much the same as "healing word". Which would put them on the same/similar level.

Hmmm... that sounds reasonable.

It brings up a humorous scenario in my mind.

Cleric: Be healed, my child.
Heathen: Eh. That's not so impressive.
Cleric: No? The hand of the divine healing your body isn't impressive?
Heathn: Not really. Bob healed me up just as well with a kind word and a pat on the back.
Cleric: Really?? What is Bob? Some sort of demigod?
Heathen: No, I think he's just a 1st level warlod. Anyway, if that is all you are offering, I think I'll just go worship Bob instead.

 

[I'm A Banana]

That's been puzzling me for quite a while; it's why, early on, I though the Warlock was going to be a controller. Three strikers and one controller still seems a bit of an odd choice in light of WotCs stated philosophy.

I listened to the podcast where they tried to explain it, but really, they didn't explain it. They just basically said "Every party will need a wizard just like every party needed a cleric ('they'll have to use different tactics'), mostly because we thought we needed an iconic mix of classes rather than to allow two choices for controllers."

It's couched in some catchprase-speak, but still, every party will need a wizard in 4e as much as every party needed a cleric in 3e.

They need to stop bragging about how they've "solved" this problem in 4e. They didn't. They've shifted it onto a different role, a different class, but for any ideal party, someone will still "have" to play the Wizard.

/mild annoyance

 

[Falling Icicle]

It seems that each class has one primary and two secondary attributes, with a different build option for each secondary attribute. Rogues' primary attribute is Dex and they can be brawny (Str) or trickster (Cha), while Warlords' primary attribute is Str and they can be inspiring (Cha) or tactical (Int).

Interesting.

 

[Darth Cyric]

Well, to be fair, a Wizard wasn't as essential as a Cleric in editions past. A boon, definitely, but not essential.

 

[breschau]

I listened to the podcast where they tried to explain it, but really, they didn't explain it. They just basically said "Every party will need a wizard just like every party needed a cleric ('they'll have to use different tactics'), mostly because we thought we needed an iconic mix of classes rather than to allow two choices for controllers."

It's couched in some catchprase-speak, but still, every party will need a wizard in 4e as much as every party needed a cleric in 3e.

They need to stop bragging about how they've "solved" this problem in 4e. They didn't. They've shifted it onto a different role, a different class, but for any ideal party, someone will still "have" to play the Wizard.

/mild annoyance

At least the recognize the issue and it will be fixed in PHBII. Not perfect, but it's something.

 

[VannATLC]

I'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.