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

[drjones]

What a waste of bits.

 

[AtomicPope]

This is flame-bait.

OP - you say that Bard/Rogue would have worked so you have to multi-class in 3e. Multi-classing in 3e makes you either a) suck in two classes or b) suck until you qualify for a prestige class.

What makes you think a single class in 4e will fit your narrow, obscure little vision of a character when 3e won't?

 

[AZRogue]

I don't think you really intend to give it 4E a fair chance. I think you WANT to, as you said, but I don't think you intend to. Probably as a byproduct of your (by your own admission) irrational dislike for the system before it's even out.

If you do manage to put your dislike aside and give it a fair chance I would say wait for the PHB. Don't go off the PHB Lite, or a few excerpts. Wait for the book itself to make your decision. And, if you don't like it, you will still have 3E. I think our tastes in a game must differ because I would rather have a root canal than play that game and it was the reason my group stopped playing DnD, but it's still there for those who like it.

 

[GnomeWorks]

What makes you think a single class in 4e will fit your narrow, obscure little vision of a character when 3e won't?

I was expecting a bit more versatility out of the class than was offered.

When I think of the warlord class, I can think of a few equally-valid interpretations of how that would work, mechanically. I didn't think that it was that much of a stretch that there would be at least some amount of support for at least a couple different interpretations.

Instead, there are two minor variations on one interpretation.

That is why I am irked.

I don't think you really intend to give it 4E a fair chance. I think you WANT to, as you said, but I don't think you intend to. Probably as a byproduct of your (by your own admission) irrational dislike for the system before it's even out.

I know, right? It's a conundrum. And I'm not even saying that sarcastically.

I don't like it. I don't think that I want to like it. But I feel like I should give it a chance to change my mind about it. But I don't want to change my mind about it.

Circular logic works because circular logic works because...

I don't know how to resolve my particular issue. I'll see what happens in a couple months, I suppose.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

Well I propose a brief challenge for the OP: construct your concept using core 3.5 rules.

My thoughts are along the lines of 'I don't get it'. I don't get the concept. It's a ranged character who inspires his allies - how and why? A support character. The ranger seems to be the whizzy ranged character in 4E, but he might not have any support powers. The support character seems to be the Warlord (or Cleric) but doesn't have any ranged powers. The reasonable solution is that you reconfigure the powers to trigger off of ranged attacks, but you won't accept that - you're playing 'by the book'. 'By the book' includes removing races that you don't like, adding guns, albeit mechanically the same, and apparently ignoring everyone's favourite rule: break the rules. Be flexible. The system seems a straight-jacket to you because you won't let it stretch to accommodate you. That's your mistake, not the system's.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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.

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.

You can't get out of the dichotomy, as far as I see. When I was a kid, I hated trying out new food and would always say I wouldn't like it before I ever tried it. Once I tried it, I (as a kid) couldn't say "oops, I was wrong, that's actually great". My pride wouldn't let me. It's silly, but that's how humans (even grown-ups like you and me) often react to this.

My only advice is - let the pressure and pride go. You don't have to be right, you don't have to be wrong about your original opinion.

Decide if you want to try the game - are there aspects that you like? If there are, try it, and focus on them. If there isn't something you like, and you and the DM don't have a good feeling about the system, you can't give it a fair chance. (That said: Wanting to like the game doesn't give a fair chance, either.)
If not, don't waste your time. You might miss a great opportunity, but it's only a game, and you'll never know, so who cares?

No. The firearm is just incidental to the character.

Reminds of how I have trouble converting the roles into a modern game. I think a ranged leader can work, but a ranged defender sounds impossible, and a modern game with a fighter-like defender sounds strange.

But this only matters for a 4E D20 Modern game, not for D&D.

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.

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.



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.

Well, the short answer is, you can't.
The longer answer is, you can't with the PHB Lite, and the previews don't imply it to be possible, either.
The closest to a Ranged Leader you can get is with a Cleric (judging by the DDXP Cleric, who had powers like lance of faith). Maybe you could try this approach, but the powers are not "tactical" (even if they must be used tactical), but divine in flavor.
A wizard might come even closer to what you invision, since he requires INT and this seems to fit for tactics, but then, none of his powers are leader-like.

We don't know if further expansions can make this work.

Here are some character concepts that the PHB 3E didn't allow:
- Playing a Jarod (The Pretender) like character. A rogue came close, but he was to combat-orientated. Arcana Unearthed/Evolved's Akashic was the first class I ever found that fit the concept. Factotum and the Chameleon prestige class might come close, too. Several years after the initial release.
- Playing a character that allies with otherworldly (possibly evil) powers to gain powers. Even the 3E Warlock doesn't do this, since his relation is a lot more vague. The Binder seems to do it (but I've never seen the class in writing or play, I only read about it.)
- Playing a character that leads his comrades into battle. Decent melee fighter, but focusing on abilities to aid his allies (maybe improved flanking benefits, moral bonuses and so on). You need a spellcaster in 3E to come close. Only the White Raven Maneuvers from Bo9S managed this archetype.

Using the "flaws" of a previous edition might not be a good idea to explain the flaws of a new edition, but I think in this case, it's acceptable. 3E and 4E are class-based games. A class covers an archetype. This provides a hard limit on what it can do. Giving a finite amount of classes, you will always have some character concepts that aren't filled with them.
A new edition won't change it. As 3E, 4E will advance over time.

 

[That One Guy]

I would like to bring up the very important mentioning of caster guns.

 

[GnomeWorks]

Well I propose a brief challenge for the OP: construct your concept using core 3.5 rules.

Start with bard, multiclass into rogue, go more heavily into rogue than bard (probably anywhere from 6/14 to 8/12), focus on charisma skills, with some emphasis on appropriate knowledge skills (history, local, nobility).

Flavor the singing as more intimidating encouragement than actual singing, probably using perform (oratory). I would probably stop "singing" immediately after using it, for flavor reasons.

Might consider a couple levels of ranger, depending on how the campaign goes. That would probably involve favored enemy (humanoid [human]), and taking the archery path.

Useful? Not necessarily, but I'm not looking to make something utterly mechanically optimal.

The reasonable solution is that you reconfigure the powers to trigger off of ranged attacks, but you won't accept that - you're playing 'by the book'. 'By the book' includes removing races that you don't like, adding guns, albeit mechanically the same, and apparently ignoring everyone's favourite rule: break the rules. Be flexible. The system seems a straight-jacket to you because you won't let it stretch to accommodate you. That's your mistake, not the system's.

We're going to go by the book because that is the best way to judge the system, is it not?

Because if we're just going to house-rule it to high heaven anyway (and so far, we really haven't: removing races is not the same as changing the rules, and the introduction of a firearm is wholly stylistic and not mechanical in any way), then why play 4e? There are enough other issues with the game, from our perspective, that we might as well design our own system. The design makes assumptions we don't like, and don't sync well with our particular playstyle and interpretation of what the rules represent: so why try to shoehorn it into something we'll tolerate, when we could write something else that accomplishes what we want from square one?

 

[Pistonrager]

Start with bard, multiclass into rogue, go more heavily into rogue than bard (probably anywhere from 6/14 to 8/12), focus on charisma skills, with some emphasis on appropriate knowledge skills (history, local, nobility).

so... minor buff class(that doesn't quite exist in 4E...) and two "striker" classes.

sounds like a ranger with a bit of warlord multiclassing to me...


EDIT: but again... it would be easier to tell you with the actual book.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I might have a solution for you, giving your 3E build. Try Cleric. You don't seem to bend on having the buffing/leading stuff to feel "tactical". The DDXP Cleric was surprisingly focused on ranged attack powers, IIRC.