Warlock, Warlord, and other alternate classes

[CleverNickName]

I'm not clear which part you think is a departure... No resurrection at low level? Difficult ressurections at mid-level? Easy ressurections at high/epic? Sounds like D&D as usual to me...

It wasn't any particular thing; it was just a shift in the metagame thinking. Warlocks using imps to defeat traps? People healing themselves and returning from the dead just by being awesome? Wizards wearing full plate and swinging swords, fighters wearing robes and tossing fireballs?

None of these things are bad...some of them are awesome, IMO. But none of them evoke the fond memories of running my friends through The Isle of Dread or Test of the Warlords over summer break. It feels like we are talking about a different game entirely.

So that's what I meant by "departure." I meant it in the "moving in a different direction" sense of the word, that's all. And I'm not even saying that's a bad thing. I'm starting to see that there might be a little bit of truth to the "4th Edition is not D&D" rhetoric, however exaggerated.

 

[Voss]

If a warlord can perform rituals, then he can pass as a cleric. Specifically, if negative conditions such as blindness or petrification are persistent, I need a leader that can cure poisons, bind wounds, raise dead, cure blindness, etc., or I need another character that can do the same. If negative conditions are not persistent (if an enemy's blindness spell lasts only for the encounter) then that need is reduced.

I was under the impression that very little lasts beyond the encounter, and what little that does last goes away with the 'extended rest'.

On the warlock- he looks like he got a great deal. Strong attacks, utility stuff, defenses, good skill selection, the best spread for stat dependency, interesting concept, the whole shebang. From what we've seen so far, the warlock looks like it will be one of the top tier classes of 4e.

 

[Lizard]

A typical party might consist of a striker, leader, defender, and controller. That's all fine if that party consists of a rogue, cleric, fighter, and wizard. But what if the striker is a ranger or warlock? What if the leader is a warlord instead of a cleric? What if we have a psion instead of a wizard? Can the warlock handle the traps, locks, and general sneakiness required in a dungeon? Can a warlord raise dead or cure a poison using martial powers? Can the psion read the magical runes on the tomb's door?

Assuming the designers are even marginally competent (a pretty safe assumption) any 'well balanced' party will do. There will be things a ranger can do a rogue can't -- why not ask "What if we need to track an enemy?"

If one striker is always better than another, the game design is a failure. If there's nothing which one striker can do that another cannot -- or can only do poorly -- ditto. Ideally, every class should be interesting and have something unique to contribute.

 

[Blacksmithking]

I was under the impression that very little lasts beyond the encounter, and what little that does last goes away with the 'extended rest'.

That's my impression as well.

On the warlock- he looks like he got a great deal.

I've always wanted to roll up a "magical rogue/archer" ever since I played with Imoen in BG1 and BG2. The warlock appears ideal for that, especially since it looks like it really can fill the striker role (even with the "sneakiness" factor). I'm hoping I can divorce some of the dark flavor from the warlock, though.

 

[Voss]

Assuming the designers are even marginally competent (a pretty safe assumption) any 'well balanced' party will do. There will be things a ranger can do a rogue can't -- why not ask "What if we need to track an enemy?"

If one striker is always better than another, the game design is a failure. If there's nothing which one striker can do that another cannot -- or can only do poorly -- ditto. Ideally, every class should be interesting and have something unique to contribute.

Given WotC's track record in balancing classes, we should all be very, very afraid.
And I won't be surprised if track is just as much a general thing anyone can do as trapfinding is.

 

[Zaruthustran]

I get the sense that noncombat abilities are much more available than before. Which is a Good Thing, in my opinion.

For example, in 3.5 only Rogues had "trapfinding". Why? I can see giving only Rogues the ability at 1st level, but why make it impossible for other characters to acquire "trapfinding" unless they take a full level in Rogue?

I understand that D&D is a class-based game and that classes need to be distinct. I think that class should derive distinction from their most exciting abilities--in other words, combat abilities. The noncombat abilities given at 1st level add flavor, but IMHO shouldn't be restricted. If Johan the Fighter wants to learn how to the "Knock" ritual (or even the Raise Dead ritual), let him spend the feat. If Aragorn the Ranger wants to dabble in nature healing rituals, let him spend the feat. And if Bob Warlock wants to train in stealth, let him spend the feat.

That's my impression as well. I don't see how, say, a warlord could supplant a cleric if persistent negative conditions are in the game. I just can't envision a martial stone to flesh, for example.

If the ritual for Stone to Flesh breaks down to intoning a few words of power and applying certain rare reagants in specific quantities, well, anyone can learn how to do that. It's essentially a recipe. Spend the feat, learn the ritual.