GnomeWorks
Adventurer
My gaming group has decided to give 4e a chance. Our summer campaign will be core 4e - but no dragonborn or tieflings, because our DM doesn't like them (he is fine with tieflings, but dislikes the new look for them in 4e).
I started thinking about what I want to play. I've been around the block a bit, and I've played pretty much every race/class combo in the 3.5 core, so I wanted something a bit different. I settled on a warlord, because it seems interesting.
My immediate thought thereafter was to make a warforged warlord wearing warplate riding a warhorse, called Wayne. I then decided that if I'm going to give 4e a fair chance, that I shouldn't go into it with a character that mocks WotC's naming conventions and horrible choice of artists (because, frankly, I can't stand WAR's art). So I decided to go with a human warlord - fairly straightforward. I also decided that I would never refer to myself as a "warlord," but rather as a "tactician" (because, frankly, WotC seems utterly incapable of coming up with solid names. But names can be changed, so I'm not that worked up about it).
Earlier last week, I'd watched The Godfather (and the second part) for the first time, and was rather impressed with it (though a bit irritated by the excessive Italian, of which I have no understanding, but it was flavorful, and I could figure out what was going on sometimes via context clues, so no big deal). So my character concept began along those lines: second son of a noble family, deals with administrative tasks and all that jazz, sort of deals with other things his older brother shouldn't deal with, to ensure that his reputation stays nice and clean. Something sort of like the younger Vito from the second part, if you've seen the movies.
I also wanted to make him fairly well-read; this isn't a dumb guy. So he's read a good deal of history, and has a solid understanding of warfare tactics. Again, this ties into the whole family thing - his brother handles the actual fighting, and my character would deal with the tactics of the situation. So I'm thinking high Int, moderate Wis and Cha. Not even concerned with physical stats - they should probably be fairly average. His shtick isn't being strong. It's being smart and manipulative.
I decided that, while he carries a sword, he prefers a ranged weapon. I managed to talk the DM into letting me have a gun, mechanically identical to a crossbow; this is primarily because I like tech, and guns are neater than crossbows, IMO. Just a flavor change, but key to the character's appearance. It's going to be his signature weapon, and says a lot about his style.
So here I am, all excited to take a look at the 4e PH lite, to figure out what sort of powers the warlord could use that would go hand-in-hand with the character concept. I'm not looking to be useless in combat - I want to be support, pretty much. The idea is that I don't do the heavy lifting, I get somebody else to do that. Seems like something the warlord should be able to handle, right? Maybe the class isn't built for it, but one would think there might be some systemic support for that sort of character, right?
Of course not.
I read the PH lite, and I am incredibly disappointed. The warlord stands toe-to-toe with the baddies, alongside the fighter and paladin? WTH? Sure, I can see how that's a standard fantasy trope, the general leading his armies and what-not, but absolutely no support for the guy who stands back and directs things from a distance?
Not only that, but all his friggin' abilities are keyed off of hitting guys in melee. So you can't lead a group of ranged combatants with the same sort of inspirational presence as you can a bunch of melee'ers? What is this garbage?
I am seriously disappointed that my character concept simply cannot work in the system. It doesn't. I don't want a melee fighter, I want a support character who doesn't use magic. The warlord - despite it's awkward name - seemed like the perfect fit for this character. But apparently not.
This is why 4e is a step backwards. Classes are straight-jackets, once again - that's fantastic. I have access to eight incredibly cliche fantasy character concepts, with perhaps a couple of minor variants upon their themes. But I can't bring a concept like the one above and realize it, at least somewhat, with the mechanics, while staying true to the concept.
I have a feeling that our "fair chance" for 4e is going to rapidly turn into us playing something else. Because this seems rather lame.
Is it possible that the PH will have more options for me? Sure, I suppose it might. But the class description for the warlord has already been previewed - surely those are pretty final by now? And that description was pretty admaant that the warlord is a front-line fighter, and that Strength is the most important ability score. This says to me that my concept, as far as I have envisioned it, is simply not workable.
Very, very lame.
I started thinking about what I want to play. I've been around the block a bit, and I've played pretty much every race/class combo in the 3.5 core, so I wanted something a bit different. I settled on a warlord, because it seems interesting.
My immediate thought thereafter was to make a warforged warlord wearing warplate riding a warhorse, called Wayne. I then decided that if I'm going to give 4e a fair chance, that I shouldn't go into it with a character that mocks WotC's naming conventions and horrible choice of artists (because, frankly, I can't stand WAR's art). So I decided to go with a human warlord - fairly straightforward. I also decided that I would never refer to myself as a "warlord," but rather as a "tactician" (because, frankly, WotC seems utterly incapable of coming up with solid names. But names can be changed, so I'm not that worked up about it).
Earlier last week, I'd watched The Godfather (and the second part) for the first time, and was rather impressed with it (though a bit irritated by the excessive Italian, of which I have no understanding, but it was flavorful, and I could figure out what was going on sometimes via context clues, so no big deal). So my character concept began along those lines: second son of a noble family, deals with administrative tasks and all that jazz, sort of deals with other things his older brother shouldn't deal with, to ensure that his reputation stays nice and clean. Something sort of like the younger Vito from the second part, if you've seen the movies.
I also wanted to make him fairly well-read; this isn't a dumb guy. So he's read a good deal of history, and has a solid understanding of warfare tactics. Again, this ties into the whole family thing - his brother handles the actual fighting, and my character would deal with the tactics of the situation. So I'm thinking high Int, moderate Wis and Cha. Not even concerned with physical stats - they should probably be fairly average. His shtick isn't being strong. It's being smart and manipulative.
I decided that, while he carries a sword, he prefers a ranged weapon. I managed to talk the DM into letting me have a gun, mechanically identical to a crossbow; this is primarily because I like tech, and guns are neater than crossbows, IMO. Just a flavor change, but key to the character's appearance. It's going to be his signature weapon, and says a lot about his style.
So here I am, all excited to take a look at the 4e PH lite, to figure out what sort of powers the warlord could use that would go hand-in-hand with the character concept. I'm not looking to be useless in combat - I want to be support, pretty much. The idea is that I don't do the heavy lifting, I get somebody else to do that. Seems like something the warlord should be able to handle, right? Maybe the class isn't built for it, but one would think there might be some systemic support for that sort of character, right?
Of course not.
I read the PH lite, and I am incredibly disappointed. The warlord stands toe-to-toe with the baddies, alongside the fighter and paladin? WTH? Sure, I can see how that's a standard fantasy trope, the general leading his armies and what-not, but absolutely no support for the guy who stands back and directs things from a distance?
Not only that, but all his friggin' abilities are keyed off of hitting guys in melee. So you can't lead a group of ranged combatants with the same sort of inspirational presence as you can a bunch of melee'ers? What is this garbage?
I am seriously disappointed that my character concept simply cannot work in the system. It doesn't. I don't want a melee fighter, I want a support character who doesn't use magic. The warlord - despite it's awkward name - seemed like the perfect fit for this character. But apparently not.
This is why 4e is a step backwards. Classes are straight-jackets, once again - that's fantastic. I have access to eight incredibly cliche fantasy character concepts, with perhaps a couple of minor variants upon their themes. But I can't bring a concept like the one above and realize it, at least somewhat, with the mechanics, while staying true to the concept.
I have a feeling that our "fair chance" for 4e is going to rapidly turn into us playing something else. Because this seems rather lame.
Is it possible that the PH will have more options for me? Sure, I suppose it might. But the class description for the warlord has already been previewed - surely those are pretty final by now? And that description was pretty admaant that the warlord is a front-line fighter, and that Strength is the most important ability score. This says to me that my concept, as far as I have envisioned it, is simply not workable.
Very, very lame.
