Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6094329" data-attributes="member: 42582">I think it's hard to describe what the warlord does without mentioning mechanics, for the same sort of reason that it's hard to describe the difference between a 3E wizard and a 3E sorcerer without mentioning mechanics.The warlord, in 4e, is defined by the way that s/he occupies the action economy of the game: every 4e class has ways of "spiking" their output (via encounter and daily powers). Some clases get bonus dice with such powers; some get bonus conditions; some get to do AoEs instead of single target attacks; some get to do minor or immediate action attacks; the warlord gets to grant bonus actions to other PCs.Stripped of that - or, in 4e terms, confined to at-will abilities - the warlord becomes much less interesting, I think. You can sacrifice you own action to have another PC act (Commander's Strike etc), which is a bit of a power-up on Aid Another; and you can hand out some modest buffs, like a cleric or a bard.I agree with you that this is the quintessence of the warlord. But I don't see how it is going to be done in Next - it would require a martial class to be balanced around encounter powers (I take it that we can agree that granting bonus actions at will would be broken), and that seems to be outside the scope of Next's design.I think you are right that the influence of the different rules environment - and in particular, the absence of a unified approach to PC "output spikes" - will inevitably have a big impact on the warlord, at least as big as the influence on the thief of introducing a generalised skill system.</blockquote>

Verification