Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6718866" data-attributes="member: 996">Yoshi was clearly asking for a combination of 3.5/PF (the gunslinger is PF) /and/ 4e classes.  He's not alone.  I'd really like to see a worth take on both the 3.5 and 4e versions of the Fighter, since the 5e fighter, though a beautiful take on the 2e fighter and then some (genuinely awesome in that sense), isn't up to either.There were some pretty overbuilt systems in 1989.  Maybe we didn't need any of the subsequent version of D&D?That's about as practical as saying you can 'role play' a wizard without needing any magic system by describing to the DM the arcane words and gestures you employ, and if you get them right, a spell will happen. 'Tactics' on the player side in D&D are essentially meta-gaming, and I'm fine with that as far as it goes.  Tactics on the character side need to be modeled by the rules & stats that define the character.Yep.  Genre.  Nope.  Not what Warlords ever did, nor what anyone wants them to start doing (I hope!).  Strictly an edition-war era bit of misinformation.  Sorry you were exposed to it.  Please, treat it like any other toxic rhetoric from a regrettable historical era.  In very small quantities, trace amounts, you might say.  That's two kinds of tactics, there.   - Player (meta-game) tactics:  TotM might be considered to constrain the tactics of the meta-game (player decisions), but, really, it just shifts them from grid-based positioning to 'gaming the DM,' and, really, grid or TotM, the D&D hp systems makes "Focus Fire" prettymuch /the/ meta-game tactic, anyway.   - Mechanics-modeled (character) tactics:  that is something the Battlemaster does, just a bit while mainly being a fighter who just hits things, rather like the EK does just a bit of casting while mainly being a fighter that just hits thing, but, I'm afraid, less so, since only a few Battlemaster maneuvers really scream 'tactics,' let alone warlord-appropriate ones.    Certainly there are more opportunities for a player to 'tactically' (or strategically) apply system mastery the more player options you introduce.  Not many of them model the tactical ability of a given character, though.Mechanically, yes, but not a very practical way, and not one that's in keeping with the concept, nor the way it played, /mechanically/.To the degree a Warlord could, though, those aspects are comparable.  It's really the 3.5 fighter that those options fall short of. They're not really part of the Warlord concept, at least not a large or specific part. (The Warlord might come up with a strategy that involved pole-arms - in one situation, but in another it might be pit traps, or archery volleys, or almost anything, really.  Feats lack the flexibility for those sorts of things.  The Warlord needs to be very flexible, with a lot of options, some of them decidedly situational.)3.x has wonderfully customizeable character creation rules, so to some extent, certainly.  In fact, though I didn't realize I was doing it at the time, I tried for something very like a Warlord with a complex fighter-based build for 8 years and through 14 levels.  It was not a rousing success.  While 3.5 made great strides in modeling character abilities with skill points and feats, it hadn't made the leap to modeling inspiration or leadership or tactical acumen on the character side.Even at 14th, I hadn't bothered with any Marshal levels, it was just a poor build component.  Bo9S never made it into that campaign, though.That was specifically in response to the idea of using a Valor Bard as a Warlord substitute.  Supernatural powers are just contrary to the concept.  Also, I got pretty tired of Vancian back in the late 80s, but that's just me.And 4e didn't exactly support it fully or perfectly, either.  Tidy and convenient as the formal roles may have been, sticking the Warlord in the 'Leader' box put some obvious things the concept might do out-of-bounds or at least, forced them to be de-emphasized.  Modeling ways to 'out maneuver'  or 'psych out' or demoralize enemies, for instance - there were a few, but they were limited to keep from stepping on the Controller role.  A 5e Warlord could do the concept better, because it focus on concept first (a tautology, maybe, but 5e deserves the props).I'm trying not to be too vehement, but it's mostly in reaction.  And, no, you missed a bit here or there, I hope I've clarified them.  It could certainly have been taken as an insult, and I've said as much, but I'm thinking that might have be an over-reaction, even if a hypothetical one.  The Battlemaster was presented as a 'complex fighter option' to be more like the resource-managing 4e fighter.  It fails at that, but that was inevitable given the base fighter's DPR-focused, multi-attacking design.  Calling it the Warlord would have closed the door to a better expression of the concept down the line, which would have been a bad thing, but it would at least have acknowledge the class in the PH1, which would have been a good thing.  A different sort of compromise.  I'm happier with the door still being open to a worthy version of the class in the future, though.</blockquote>

Verification