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

[GnomeWorks]

I think any potential for reasonable discussion went belly-up when the OP said that he could create the concept he wanted in 3E by multiclassing--but declared that 4E failed to allow the concept without even considering multiclassing.

Hasn't it been stated that multiclassing works differently nowadays?

Not only that, but that doesn't seem to resolve the issue that the warlord powers are all melee based (or at least the ones we've seen). Multiclassing does not seem to be able to get around that.

I mean, maybe. You know more than I do.

Never have I seen a more obvious agenda intended to "prove" that the new edition is somehow flawed.

3.5 was open and versatile. There were some places in which it was rather lock-step, but there was a good deal of variety that was attainable. 4e seems to be moving away from that.

Could just be perception. So far, however, that seems to be the case.

And no, admitting to said bias does not therefore make it okay.

I'm trying to reconcile my anti-4e bias with wanting to give it a fair chance. I'm not sure how that's going to turn out. I want to give it a fair chance, but at the same time, I don't. I can throw reasonable (to me, at any rate) arguments at myself for either approach.

So far, I think I've determined that my approach to this game of 4e is going to attempt to be fairly honest. I'm not going to try to play a character that screams "4e is stupid," and I'm not going to go out of my way to find loopholes or exploits, just like I wouldn't with 3.5. I'm going to try to play a mechanically-honest and straight-up character, and not interpret the rules as poorly or as stupidly as possible: I'm going to try to interpret the mechanics as reasonably as possible.

We're going to play it by the book, so I don't think more than that can really be asked.

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: ...

I don't really think any of those solutions is workable.

As I've mentioned earlier in this post and in the last one, I don't know if multiclassing will allow you to somehow circumvent the melee aspect of the warlord powers we've seen thus far.

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.

There could, but from the flavor, it really doesn't seem that way.

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).

I don't think that's entirely fair.

I knew that the warlord was the martial leader. My understanding of the "leader" role is that it's support. That's exactly what I was looking for, and it seemed to be the right thing to go with.

Admittedly, I didn't have a good idea of how WotC presented the class, which is where it "went 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.

The entire system is suspect because the classes are conceptual, archetypal strait-jackets.

Some amount of class definition is necessary, sure. But variety is good, too; there should be some room to maneuver within those classes. Aside from power selection (which, admittedly, is probably a significant part of it), there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of that.

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 again, no. We're playing it by the book. No questions asked.

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.

I was aware of the half-elf thing. That didn't seem to help out much - it doesn't solve the problem of warlord powers being keyed off of melee attacks.

Multiclassing at paragon - again, going into another class doesn't solve the warlord's issues.

And unless feats allow you to change how some powers function (doubtful), they don't seem to resolve the issue, either.

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

*sigh*

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

Hmm... nope, I really don't.

The basic idea here is a support character. I simply want to be able to do the support part of the warlord without the "hitting-dudes-with-sticks" part. It seems like it would be fairly simple to separate those two, yes? And give access to powers that allow one without requiring the other, but perhaps some other balance mechanism?

Okay, maybe not, but I'd hope that it would be supported.

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

But that's the ranger's shtick - he's a striker. If you let the fighter do the same sort of thing, aren't you having a bit of role-bleeding going on? Then the fighter could function like a striker.

I suppose, yeah, it probably wouldn't be mechanically broken. But it would break the role boundaries a bit. Maybe not enough to be worried about, but it might be.

 

[FireLance]

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

The cleric is also a leader, and the sample cleric has more ranged powers than melee ones (his daily does 3d8+4 damage at range 10, by the way ). A warlord that functions at range really isn't much of a stretch.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Hasn't it been stated that multiclassing works differently nowadays?

Not the point. I'm not saying multiclassing would or would not solve your problem. I'm saying you didn't even consider it, yet you're touting the advantages of a system where you did use multiclassing.

It's your approach I take issue with, not your results.

 

[GnomeWorks]

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.

Not disagreeing, but I think it's making the fighter step a bit on the striker's toes.

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.

*shrug*

I mean, sure, it might be balance-able.

Unless it's in the core, though, I'm not doing it. We're playing 4e by the books.

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.

That would probably be the most reasonable way to go about it, I imagine. Though with the rather limited number of powers, that number might be ridiculously high anyway, to the point where the original two-feat setup would be just as viable.

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

I don't want to play artillery. I want to play support.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Incidentally, I also find it ironic that you claim 4E is more limited because you can't play what was essentially the bard role in 3E...

But in 3E (or at least core 3E), you couldn't play what is essentially the warlock role in 4E. So isn't it less an issue of limitations, and more an issue of prioritizing concepts in the core?

 

[GnomeWorks]

Not the point. I'm not saying multiclassing would or would not solve your problem. I'm saying you didn't even consider it, yet your touting the advantages of a system where you did use multiclassing.

When I saw that the warlord didn't quite do it, I did recall that the human and the half-elf had their racial shtick that let them pull powers from other places, or however that worked.

Humans didn't seem to do it, since they pulled another at-will from the list, and that didn't seem to do much. The warlord powers were all about the melee.

Half-elves showed promise, ripping a power from another class. That seemed reasonable - grabbing magic missile, saying that's the firearm? Sure, deal-with-able. Then I reread it and saw that it became a per-encounter. That just didn't do it for me.

Ripping powers from other classes is a rather interesting and solid way of multiclassing, don't get me wrong. It seems like a solid way of ensuring that you're not gimping yourself by taking one level in sorcerer, so to speak. But it doesn't seem to work here, because the basic problem with the warlord remains: the warlord powers are melee.

 

[Kishin]

Except that in core 3.5 (which is what we would be playing, if we don't play 4e), I could make this concept work. It'd be awkward, but something like a bard/ranger or rogue/ranger mix would do it, I think.

No. No it wouldn't. It would come nowhere near it.

You'd need a Marshal from the Miniatures' Handbook, or White Raven discipline manuevers from Tome of Battle.

Surprise, surprise, the core books don't cover every type of character. In any system.

Even so, it still probably wouldn't do the trick. Warlord powers are all about smacking dudes in melee to provide the support aspect of their class. So being at range would mean I wouldn't be able to use those, presumably. So that aspect of the character would be wasted.

Switch it over to ranged attacks? Work something out with your DM? Or you know, continue to be abrasive.

asn't it been stated that multiclassing works differently nowadays?

You get powers from another class. You just use feats to do it. I know how the word 'different' totally disqualified you even looking at the concept.

But why am I arguing? I should have just posted the Akbar "It's a Trap!" link and been done with it.

Sometimes, I feel like the guy in this comic: http://xkcd.com/386/

 

[FireLance]

Not disagreeing, but I think it's making the fighter step a bit on the striker's toes.

Well, if the fighter's 3[W] power in melee doesn't step on the toes of a melee striker (like a rogue, or a two-weapon ranger) 3[W] at range shouldn't step on the toes of a ranged striker, either. The strikers get other means of pumping damage, e.g. sneak attack for the rogue, and quarry for the ranger.

Anyway, I though we were discussing warlords, not fighters? The key issue is whether it would be unbalanced to allow the warlord to activate his powers with ranged attacks instead of melee attacks, right?

 

[That One Guy]

Heck, a wand implement firing magic missile and acid arrow is a fantasy gun.

Caster gun FTW.

 

[GnomeWorks]

The cleric is also a leader, and the sample cleric has more ranged powers than melee ones (his daily does 3d8+4 damage at range 10, by the way ). A warlord that functions at range really isn't much of a stretch.

But it seems to be a stretch, by virtue of the fluff. They wouldn't say, "Strength is the most important stat for a warlord!", then go ahead and make a bunch of powers that are ranged (and presumably Dex-based). If they did that, they probably would've mentioned that in the excerpt, I imagine.

Incidentally, I also find it ironic that you claim 4E is more limited because you can't play what was essentially the bard role in 3E...

Wrong, good sir!

I say that 4e is more limited because the classes are more tightly-defined mechanical representations of archetypes, not because of the classes presented.

The 3.5 rogue is capable of representing a good deal of character concepts. The 4e rogue does not seem to offer that sort of versatility.

That is what I mean by saying that 4e is more limited.

No. No it wouldn't. It would come nowhere near it.

It'd come close.

Switch it over to ranged attacks? Work something out with your DM? Or you know, continue to be abrasive.

Did you miss the part where I said we're playing it by the book?

I know how the word 'different' totally disqualified you even looking at the concept.

Now who's being abrasive?