D&D 4E My Warlord Concept - Why Does 4e Fail?

[mach1.9pants]

Well, having re-read the Warlord article and seen this line "Warlords stand on the front line issuing..." has sort of said to me that, no you cannot make an effective ranged leader with the classes we have (warlord and cleric) so your concept will have to be achieved by:
a) multi-classing: but I doubt that would work, any ranged powers you get from other classes wouldn't give your allies benefits.
b) house-ruling: Always works, change the powers to be ranged. But blance in a new game is hard to achieve
c) Wait, I am afraid, for a new class that is a leader and works at range. A bard might do it (and you could even make it martial by just changing the fluff descriptions a bit) as I imagine it will be an arcane leader and, as such, a squishy 'lead from the back' type.

Lead from the back quote:
Gen Melchett "Don't worry, Captain Darling and I will be right behind you"
Capt Blackadder (soto voce) "Yes, about 15 miles behind you!"

 

[Stalker0]

Warlord excerpt, again. That seems to be pretty much everything one would need to figure out the basics of a warlord-class'd character, yes? Sure, there are holes in what is presented - some stuff is left out.

There's nothing in the basics of the warlord class that excludes ranged attacks. They get simple ranged proficiency, they provide an aura (so they can sit in back and still gives bonuses). There action point bonuses could apply to melee or ranged.

As for the powers, this is the key, we've seen a very small handful of powers. Who knows how many powers there will be to choose from? There could be ranged powers a plenty for the warlord. Or perhaps multiclassing is useful enough to acquire a few ranger powers so you can still bark orders and use that "gun" to its full extent.

 

[GnomeWorks]

Uh... Yes, that's quite the "fair chance" you're giving it. Nitpicking and hating it even BEFORE you even come up with the character isn't the best way to go in with an open mind, I suspect.

My feelings on this "fair chance" attempt are muddled, yes. I'm aware of the dichotomy. I'm not sure how to resolve it. I'm probably not going to go into this game liking the system, but I'll try to keep in mind that I need to keep an open mind about the system. I'm not sure I want to like it, which might be part of the problem, but I feel it necessary to give it a chance, at least.

Hopefully that gives an idea of what's running through my head.

Also, you probably should play a different game if your fair chance means dismissing a game because of a fan made preview pdf.

We're going to run 4e, regardless of my personal reservations or personal approval of the system. The DM also does not approve of what's been shown already, but he agrees that we need to give it a fair chance, so we're going to try.

That's why I suspect that this thread is basically just a flame-bait. We'll have to see how the thread opener reacts to the replies to determine.

Fair enough.

I'm sorry I'm actually confused as to what you want... you want to shoot people, and have it inspire people with the cool way in which you shoot them?

No. The firearm is just incidental to the character.

I want to use warlord-esque powers, but without the requirement of hitting people with a stick to do so. Just plain, straight-up support. Throw in some ranged attacks for fun, because I like having some damage output. But mostly providing 3.5-bard-esque support.

Warlords inspire people through their actions and rhetoric, but rhetoric alone while standing well out of harms way seems uh... cowardly? I don't know why the class would ever work in practice honestly. I also don't really see the relation to the movie. Words and guns? The guy helped his brother, he didn't engage in massive melee combats and inspired his allies to feats of greatness in the middle of it.

So maybe it's not the best of fits. I'm not looking to perfectly make the character I want, but I want something close to what I had envisioned in the hour or two I had spent thinking about the idea. The warlord as presented in the excerpt does not fit at all.

Sure, you should be allowed to play what you want to play, but don't expect your bizarre idea that doubt many people would dream up to be stock out of the book.

Yeah, thinking outside of the box sucks, doesn't it?

Versatility and modularity in design is a feature, not a bug. Straight-jacket classes are not nifty, after the openness that was 3.5.

It's not like it would be very hard get your DM to allow you to do similar melee powers at range, this is a pen and paper RPG. You're shooting your own concept down when it's entirely possible with very minor adjustments.

Nope. We're not doing that. We're going to play the core as written, with the exception of dragonborn and tieflings not being in. As mentioned, the firearm thing is merely stylistic - it is, in all mechanical ways, a crossbow.

And how is it a step backwards? Would you be playing a bard in 3.5? You don't want to sing at people so you can't play a bard! Impossible to change, set in stone, rawwr.

Which is lame, as well, to be sure. But 4e's approach doesn't really seem to be moving forward at all, either, in that regard.

Dude. Dude. I know it's an annoying feeling when you come up with a character concept that seems totally in-genre and balanced and then the rules fail to support it satisfactorily for no particular reason. That happens to me all the time. In 3.5, in Exalted, in the Street Fighter RPG, in almost every RPG I've tried.

I'd be fine with it not being a fantastic fit. The system - at least, what we've seen of it so far - doesn't seem to support this character at all.

But dismissing an entire game because it happened to you one time? Especially when that game is a new edition of an existing game, and comes far closer to realizing your concept than any prior edition could have? You're overreacting to an almost absurd degree.

There are so many other things that irk me about 4e that it's not even funny.

I have a homebrew system in the works that deals with these things in the manner in which I think they should be dealt with. I could be working on that, rather than dealing with 4e.

I have high expectations - or, at least, expectations that lie in directions different from those that the designers of 4e have taken D&D.

Mind you, many of the OP's problems would be solved by a feat that allows you to activate melee powers with ranged attacks. The only question is whether this feat: ...

From what I can think of, off the top of my head, I doubt the existence of such a feat. I mean, throwing the fighter's daily for 3[w] damage at range?

I mean, sure, maybe - we haven't seen much in the way of feats, so it's possible. But I somewhat doubt it.

 

[Thasmodious]

I know that sounds muddled. I'm muddled, in how to approach our next game.

I think you are muddled as to how to develop a character concept as well. I don't mean that as a flame, but, by your own statements you -

1. Developed a concept without worrying about mechanics (a great first step)
2. Arbitrarily assigned a class to the concept without having even read about it, based solely on its name, which you hate anyway. (this is where it begins to go wrong).
3. Looking over what little is known about the warlord so far, you decide the entire system is suspect because the class you picked out of a hat won't fit the character concept you have.
4. You seem to dismiss the idea of looking at other classes, while also having not read much on them.
5. You conclude 4e won't fit your needs.

That seem a bit flawed to you? The idea is that you develop a concept and then mold it to the set of mechanics you are working with. It requires a bit of fluidity to meld concept and mechanics in any system. You even acknowledge that in 3e you would need to multiclass to pull this off, but don't consider that option here. Even with what little we know, I can think of several options to begin making that concept work - fighter, cleric, rogue and ranger all seem like they could meld to the concept. A wizard fits the concept in all ways except that you seem determined to be martial rather than arcane, which is fine. But that class fits well in all other regards (intelligent, tactical, ranged). Heck, a wand implement firing magic missile and acid arrow is a fantasy gun.

 

[ZetaStriker]

Again, as has already been said, just ask your DM if he'll allow you to activate your Warlord powers off ranged attacks. Even without multiclassing as a Warlord/Ranger, that'd allow you to use your character concept.

And since you don't know, multiclassing in 4E works 3 ways. Half-elves get free powers from other classes, feats (presumably) work in a similar way, and you can apparently opt to multiclass instead of taking a Paragon Path or Epic Destiny(the 4E prestige class equivalents), although we have almost no information on that last method.

 

[doctorhook]

Given that the OP is clearly baiting, I just gotta say:

 

[AverageCitizen]

I'd be fine with it not being a fantastic fit. The system - at least, what we've seen of it so far - doesn't seem to support this character at all.

You do have to admit that it is a fairly specific concept.

You want a ranged martial leader focusing on support and skills even more than most leaders. I'm not really surprised that this isn't in the first set of books. I mean, it sucks that its not in there and a in a perfect world it would have been covered, but I am not going to fault the system just yet. If its not in the martial supplement, I'll be right there with you. I'll even bring the torches and pitchforks.

 

[Pistonrager]

From what I can think of, off the top of my head, I doubt the existence of such a feat. I mean, throwing the fighter's daily for 3[w] damage at range?

yeah as opposed to the rangers daily that does 2[w] to 2 different enemies... at range... oh and you roll twice to hit...

 

[FireLance]

From what I can think of, off the top of my head, I doubt the existence of such a feat. I mean, throwing the fighter's daily for 3[w] damage at range?

I mean, sure, maybe - we haven't seen much in the way of feats, so it's possible. But I somewhat doubt it.

I suppose you could call it "Ranged Inspiration" and restrict it to warlords. Anyway, the fact that a daily does 3[W] damage at range doesn't seem to be a big issue - the sample ranger's daily does 2[W] damage to two targets at range, making it effectively 4[W] damage (though split between two targets) at range.

One other way to scale it is for the first feat to allow you to convert (melee) powers into (ranged) powers, but with thrown weapons only, and a second feat to allow the same for all ranged weapons.

EDIT: Another possibility is for the feat to allow the conversion of a specific number of such powers (say, 1 + Intelligence modifier), and you can choose additional powers when your Intelligence modifier increases, and change the selected powers when you learn new ones.

 

[MaelStorm]

Dude, the role you want to play (stay in the back and call the shot) is a controller. The warlord is a leader.