kishin said:
I have a hard time seeing you as 'giving the system a fair chance' when you spend your first two paragraphs insulting it (and even pepper the rest of your text with it).
Yeah, I'm aware of the issues there. I want to give it a fair chance, but at the same time, I'm biased against it. It's an issue I'm trying to deal with... as much as I dislike it, I think I want to give it at least a chance to prove itself.
I know that sounds muddled. I'm muddled, in how to approach our next game. I think I want to give it a fair chance, but I also realize that I'm a bit irrational in my dislike for it.
kishin said:
Complaining about it not being able to represent the breadth of options available in systems with far more support material is like complaining about water being wet.
Except that in core 3.5 (which is what we would be playing, if we don't play 4e), I could make this concept work. It'd be awkward, but something like a bard/ranger or rogue/ranger mix would do it, I think.
4e seems to say, "play an archetype."
FitzTheRuke said:
I also find it pretty funny that your DM won't allow Tieflings because he doesn't like the ART but will houserule guns. What's so hard about saying that Tieflings look different in your game? Do you always use stock-art to show what your character looks like?
He also doesn't really like the concept behind them... he's also irked that there aren't celestial counterparts.
DandD said:
What's the question that we should discuss all together? I just see another rant from an user who is known for not liking D&D 4th edition.
I'm well-known now? Woot!
DandD said:
Is this thread meant to be taken seriously, or an attempt to flame-bait? If it's the latter, I think it's better to inform the moderators as quickly as possible.
Prior to early yesterday morning, I had not looked at the system as a player, since I'm usually the DM for my group. This is a "rant" in the sense that I've taken a look at an admittedly small part of the system, and failed to find a way to realize a concept.
Mal Malenkirk said:
Actually, being inspirational without being in the thick of it never made much sense to me. Anyone who has ever been in a brawl knows that you tune out what happens outside of it so if there's a guy with wonky pistol in the back shouting encouragement (or a bard singing a silly tune for that matter), it ain't gonna make much of a difference. Now if he lend a hand, that's something else. You'll notice him and pay attention.
Well, the inspirational part would have required a bit of flavoring, and I was prepared to do that. The character's style of inspiration would be more intimidation, than inspiration.
Mal Malenkirk said:
For the tactical powers (Those keyed to INT rather than CHA), we know they don't all require melee. We already know about a power that let all your team mate take a ranged attack, for example. I expect you can shoot yourself if you have a ranged weapon prepared.
But the majority of those previewed do. Which is what irked me.
Is it possible there are more that are ranged? Sure. But from the way the preview was written, and the way the class seems flavored, I really, seriously doubt it. The class seems very Leonidas-esque (re
300) - which isn't necessarily a bad thing. But it's rather focused, and doesn't seem to allow for much interpretation beyond the archetype.
Pistonrager said:
1. don't base much off the phb lite...
Warlord excerpt. Very melee-oriented.
Pistonrager said:
2. just because you've played everything in 3.5 doesn't mean anything in 4E
...and? I didn't want to play a wizard again. Or a fighter. Or a rogue. I've done all these things, I wanted to do something different. The warlord seemed like a pretty solid option, so far as that was concerned.
Pistonrager said:
3. you rant to be a ranged tactician? play a ranger and bark out orders, maybe multiclass to get some of the non-melee based abilities. remember, just because your class role sets your basic combat options you do get to roleplay the character, order people around, tell them to flank or whatever...
I like having the flavor of the character and the mechanics behind it tied together, somewhat. I really liked the idea of the warlord moving party members around, and that sort of battlefield control. I
really like the idea of playing a non-magical support character - it seemed rather neat! Hence why the warlord seemed like the way to go.
I'm not really looking to play a front-line fighter type. I want a support character.
Majoru Oakheart said:
Keep in mind that D&D is a game about combat. All classes should be able to fight. If it can't fight, it isn't a concept for a D&D class. HOW it fights will be different from class to class: Some throwing fireballs, some shooting eldrich blasts, some hitting with a sword, some with a bow, some calling holy energy down from the sky.
Sure, yes, totally. I'm not debating this. I'm not looking to be utterly ineffective in combat, or something to that extent. I'm not, however, looking to play a melee class. I want a non-magical support class, with some minor ranged combat elements, I suppose.
mach1.9pants said:
I find it a little odd that you made a character concept, chose a class, and then looked to see if the class would fit. In any RPG that can lead you to problems. You would have problems making that character concept from the first PHB 3E (or any previous edition) and even with the cascade of splat that 3E has given birth might not exactly supply your wishes. What you expected a class to be was incorrect, I would find that disappointing rather than lame. I guess you must be very disappointed, but your post comes across as very anti-4E - not all giving it a go.
From what I had read of the warlord (and I had apparently skipped over the class powers), the warlord seemed like exactly what I was going for. Primarily support, non-magical, tactical.
I don't think that I would have had as many issues making the character with core 3.5. As stated earlier in this post, something like bard/rogue or ranger/rogue would have worked. Multiclassing would most likely have been required to get the right feel, and it wouldn't have been a perfect fit, but it would've at least allowed me to stay out of melee. The warlord doesn't seem to offer much in that regard.
Baron Opal said:
Even so, with about 6 seconds worth of thought, I think a warlord multiclassed with ranger or vice versa would fit your character to a tee.
Multiclassing might be the answer, sure. I'll admit that multiclassing hadn't occurred to me, because I think someone said at some point that multiclassing is different now?...
Even so, it still probably wouldn't do the trick. Warlord powers are all about smacking dudes in melee to provide the support aspect of their class. So being at range would mean I wouldn't be able to use those, presumably. So that aspect of the character would be wasted.
Baron Opal said:
And very, very short sighted on your part. You don't have access to even 1% of the necesary information. Read the rules, the whole rules, and then let us know if your concept isn't supported. Then I will believe you whole heartedly.
Warlord excerpt, again. That seems to be pretty much everything one would need to figure out the basics of a warlord-class'd character, yes? Sure, there are holes in what is presented - some stuff is left out. But the basic design premise of the class is there, plain as day, and it does not seem to support what I am trying to do here, at all.
