4th Edition Warlord Preview

[Xefas]

The Warlord preview is out today. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ex/20080421a)

Just thought I'd create a thread for it.

[Illiterate Scribe]

For those at home:


It wasn’t easy to choose the classes to appear in the Player’s Handbook. Many conflicting objectives affected these decisions—for example, we wanted to include multiple builds so that there would be a number of different ways to create, for example, a fighter… but doing so took up more space for each single class description, and that meant fewer classes could fit into the Player’s Handbook. Similarly, we wanted to reproduce popular classes from 3rd Edition as quickly as possible, so that players engaged in ongoing games could convert easily… but we also thought it would be highly desirable to show off new classes that might give an experienced player a chance to try out something he or she had never seen before.
This last point is one of the reasons why the warlord is in the new Player’s Handbook. Just as 3rd Edition introduced the sorcerer (and re-introduced the barbarian) up front, we felt that 4th Edition should introduce one or two classes that weren’t previously part of the core D&D experience.
The warlord first appeared in our second design draft of 4th Edition as the marshal. Those of you familiar with the 3rd Edition Miniatures Handbook might remember this class. (You might also wonder why we changed the name from marshal to warlord. The answer is that we wanted to broaden the concept from a medieval military commander to someone who might be a barbaric warchief, an elven marchwarden, or a noble-born knight-commander.) Of course, the 4E version was only loosely based on the 3E version; among other things, the new marshal has access to the same sort of power selection as any other 4E class, instead of a boatload of auras. It was also moved more clearly into the Leader role, while the 3E marshal was a class that fell “in between” roles, and certainly couldn’t replace a cleric or a fighter in the typical party mix.
The 4E warlord now helps alleviate that unfortunate requirement of party composition in all previous editions of Dungeons & Dragons: before, a party had to include a cleric in order to be effective. Very early on in 4th Edition design, our work on character roles led us to the idea that any character serving as the party’s “cleric”—whether a bard, shaman, warlord, or whatever—needed to be as good at that job as the cleric or else we’d have yet another edition of D&D in which every party still needed a cleric. That led us to the idea of the Leader role, and the warlord as just one of several possible classes that can fill this role. Of course, the warlord fills it in his own unique way, with powers that have a strong flavor of clever tactics and heroic inspiration. Read on a bit, and you’ll see for yourself!
--Rich Baker


Warlord Overview

Characteristics: You are a strong warrior in melee, able to stand beside the fighter or paladin in your party. Your powers grant allies immediate actions (usually moves or attacks), provide bonuses to attack or defense, and grant healing in the midst of battle.

Religion: Warlords favor martial gods such as Bahamut and Kord, and those who have a particular eye for strategy or leadership esteem Ioun or Erathis. Evil and unaligned warlords often worship Bane.

Races: Dragonborn make excellent inspiring warlords, and half-elves are equally inspiring leaders. Eladrin are skilled tactical warlords. Tiefling warlords are versatile, combining powers from both builds, and humans can excel at either path.

“Onward to victory! They cannot stand before us!”

Warlords are accomplished and competent battle leaders. Warlords stand on the front line issuing commands and bolstering their allies while leading the battle with weapon in hand. Warlords know how to rally a team to win a fight.

Your ability to lead others to victory is a direct result of your history. You could be a minor warchief looking to make a name for yourself, a pious knight-commander on leave from your militant order, a youthful noble eager to apply years of training to life outside the castle walls, a calculating mercenary captain, or a courageous marshal of the borderlands who fights to protect the frontier. Regardless of your background, you are a skillful warrior with an uncanny gift for leadership.

The weight of your armor is not a hindrance; it is a familiar comfort. The worn weapon grip molds to your hand as if it were a natural extension of your arm. It’s time to fight and to lead.

Class Traits

Role: Leader. You are an inspiring commander and a master of battle tactics.
Power Source: Martial. You have become an expert in tactics through endless hours of training and practice, personal determination, and your own sheer physical toughness.
Key Abilities: Strength, Intelligence, Charisma

Armor Proficiencies: Cloth, leather, hide, chainmail; light shield
Weapon Proficiencies: Simple melee, military melee, simple ranged
Bonus to Defense: +1 Fortitude, +1 Will

Hit Points at 1st Level: 12 + Constitution score
Hit Points per Level Gained: 5
Healing Surges per Day: 7 + Constitution modifier

Trained Skills: From the class skills list below, choose four trained skills at 1st level.
Class Skills: Athletics (Str), Diplomacy (Cha), Endurance (Con), Heal (Wis), History (Int), Intimidate (Cha)

Build Options: Inspiring warlord, tactical warlord
Class Features: Combat Leader, Commanding Presence, inspiring word

Warlord Class Features

All warlords have these class features.

Combat Leader
You and each ally within 10 squares who can see and hear you gain a +2 power bonus to initiative.

Commanding Presence
Choose one of the following two benefits.

Inspiring Presence: When an ally who can see you spends an action point to take an extra action, that ally also regains lost hit points equal to one-half your level + your Charisma modifier.

Tactical Presence: When an ally you can see spends an action point to make an extra attack, the ally gains a bonus to the attack roll equal to one-half your Intelligence modifier.

The choice you make also provides bonuses to certain warlord powers. Individual powers detail the effects (if any) your Commanding Presence selection has on them.

Inspiring Word
Using the inspiring word power, warlords can grant their comrades additional resilience with nothing more than a shout of encouragement.

Creating a Warlord

The two warlord builds are inspiring warlord and tactical warlord. Some warlords lean more on their Charisma, while others rely on Intelligence, but Strength is important to every warlord.

Inspiring Warlord
You lead by exhortation, encouragement, and inspiration. Your powers help your allies find new surges of courage and endurance within themselves, helping them heal, shrug off debilitating conditions, and defend themselves from attack. Your attack powers rely on Strength, so that should be your best ability score. The benefits you give your allies, though, depend almost entirely on Charisma, so make that second best. Intelligence is your best third choice, so you can dabble in other warlord powers and to help your Reflex defense. Select powers that make the best use of your high Charisma score.

Suggested Feat: Inspired Recovery (Human feat: Toughness)
Suggested Skills: Athletics, Diplomacy, Heal, History
Suggested At-Will Powers: commander’s strike, furious smash
Suggested Encounter Power: guarding attack
Suggested Daily Power: bastion of defense
Guarding Attack Warlord Attack 1
With a calculated strike, you knock your adversary off balance and grant your comrade-in-arms some protection against the villain’s attacks.

Encounter Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC

Hit: 2[W] + Strength modifier damage. Until the end of your next turn, one ally adjacent to either you or the target gains a +2 power bonus to AC against the target’s attacks.

Inspiring Presence: The power bonus to AC equals 1 + your Charisma modifier.
Bastion of Defense Warlord Attack 1
Honorable warriors never fall!

Daily Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC

Hit: 3[W] + Strength modifier damage. Allies within 5 squares of you gain a +1 power bonus to all defenses until the end of the encounter.

Effect: Allies within 5 squares of you gain temporary hit points equal to 5 + your Charisma modifier.
Tactical Warlord
Your leadership takes the form of quick commands, cunning strategies, and tactical superiority. Your powers guide your allies to extra and more powerful attacks, as well as helping them move quickly in combat situations. You also assist your allies by moving your enemies around or knocking them prone. You use Strength for your attack powers, so make that your best ability score. Intelligence is secondary, because your Intelligence determines just how effective a leader you are. Charisma should be your third best score, so you can dabble in other warlord powers and to improve your Will defense. Select powers that make the best use of your high Intelligence score.

Suggested Feat: Tactical Assault (Human feat: Weapon Focus)
Suggested Skills: Endurance, Heal, History, Intimidate
Suggested At-Will Powers: viper’s strike, wolf pack tactics
Suggested Encounter Power: warlord’s favor
Suggested Daily Power: lead the attack
Warlord’s Favor Warlord Attack 1
With a calculated blow, you leave your adversary exposed to an imminent attack from one of your closest allies.

Encounter Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC

Hit: 2[W] + Strength modifier damage. One ally within 5 squares of you gains a +2 power bonus to attack rolls against the target until the end of your next turn.

Tactical Presence: The bonus to attack rolls that you grant equals 1 + your Intelligence modifier.
Lead the Attack Warlord Attack 1
Under your direction, arrows hit their marks and blades drive home.

Daily Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC

Hit: 3[W] + Strength modifier damage. Until the end of the encounter, you and each ally within 5 squares of you gain a power bonus to attack rolls against the target equal to 1 + your Intelligence modifier.

Miss: Until the end of the encounter, you and each ally within 5 squares of you gain a +1 power bonus to attack rolls against the target.

Eugh, lots of +1s.

[Justyn]

I wonder: if 4th keeps Prestige Classes, would there be a Chief Warlord Prestige Class?

[Rutee]

I wonder: if 4th keeps Prestige Classes, would there be a Chief Warlord Prestige Class?
They're keeping PrCs, just changing the name. Perhaps.

Looks spiffy, but it's nothing new, in any sense. Still my choice for first 4e character.

[Xefas]

I wonder: if 4th keeps Prestige Classes, would there be a Chief Warlord Prestige Class?

They replaced Prestige Classes with Paragon Paths which are basically the same, except that (as I understand it) they overlap your normal class's abilities, rather than replace them.

So, a theoretical "Blademaster" Paragon Path put on a Fighter would look far different than a Blademaster Paladin, considering one is getting more Fighter-y even as they gain their Paragon powers, and the other is getting more Paladin-y, even though it's the same path.

Then there are Epic Destinies which are silly-powerful and only for use in Epic Levels. They turn you into a (literal) god and such.

[Justyn]

They replaced Prestige Classes with Paragon Paths which are basically the same, except that (as I understand it) they overlap your normal class's abilities, rather than replace them.


They're keeping PrCs, just changing the name. Perhaps.

I long ago stopped paying attention to the stuff for 4th, I was just trying to make a joke. Get it? Chief Warlord, like Erfworld?

[holywhippet]

Sounds like the warlord is a bit like a bard - only more violent and less knowledgable.

[Kurald Galain]

I hope that this is only partial information.

It seems that every class has two "sub-classes", in this case the inspiring warlord and the tactical warlord. The problem here is that both are spelled out already. Requiring the character to pick four class skills out of six possibilities effectively means that most warlords will have most of the same skills - and of the two sub-classes, one focuses on int, therefore takes the int skill; and the other focuses on cha, therefore takes the cha skills. Furthermore, the one focusing on int takes the power that gives a huge bonus if you're focusing on int (Guarding attack), and likewise for the one focusing on charisma (Warlord’s Favor).

So either there is very limited diversity among builds at level one, or this is limited information. I'm hoping it is the latter.

And yeah, +1 bonuses really aren't that big of a deal. And yeah, someone will be along shortly to scream that everybody who expresses doubt about any aspect of 4E is a complete moron who never played anything above first edition.

[SamTheCleric]

Looks neat... fills in as the bard if you go the inspiring route and as the marshal for the tactical route.

[Valairn]

I hope that this is only partial information.

It seems that every class has two "sub-classes", in this case the inspiring warlord and the tactical warlord. The problem here is that both are spelled out already. Requiring the character to pick four class skills out of six possibilities effectively means that most warlords will have most of the same skills - and of the two sub-classes, one focuses on int, therefore takes the int skill; and the other focuses on cha, therefore takes the cha skills. Furthermore, the one focusing on int takes the power that gives a huge bonus if you're focusing on int (Guarding attack), and likewise for the one focusing on charisma (Warlord’s Favor).

So either there is very limited diversity among builds at level one, or this is limited information. I'm hoping it is the latter.

And yeah, +1 bonuses really aren't that big of a deal. And yeah, someone will be along shortly to scream that everybody who expresses doubt about any aspect of 4E is a complete moron who never played anything above first edition.

Those are just suggested builds. It even says suggested, you can pick and choose whatever combination of feats and first level abilities you want. Also this is just an excerpt, it probably isn't even close to everything that each class can do. /shrug

[Learnedguy]

I hope that this is only partial information.

It seems that every class has two "sub-classes", in this case the inspiring warlord and the tactical warlord. The problem here is that both are spelled out already. Requiring the character to pick four class skills out of six possibilities effectively means that most warlords will have most of the same skills - and of the two sub-classes, one focuses on int, therefore takes the int skill; and the other focuses on cha, therefore takes the cha skills. Furthermore, the one focusing on int takes the power that gives a huge bonus if you're focusing on int (Guarding attack), and likewise for the one focusing on charisma (Warlord’s Favor).

So either there is very limited diversity among builds at level one, or this is limited information. I'm hoping it is the latter.


Hmm, the article seemed to imply that they had to limit the amount of builds in the PHB to make room for everything.

So I'm guessing that they're planning on releasing more builds as soon as they start producing additional books. And there's where the broken stuff will be:smallbiggrin:

The many +1 bonuses would indicate that they are taking a "careful" approach for the PHB.

[Kurald Galain]

Those are just suggested builds. It even says suggested, you can pick and choose whatever combination of feats and first level abilities you want. Also this is just an excerpt, it probably isn't even close to everything that each class can do. /shrug

Yeah, I can see that, but think about it - you have to pick either the inspiring presence ability, or the tactical presence. Now suppose you pick inspiring... are you going to pick Guarding attack, or Warlord’s Favor? One gives a flat +2 bonus, the other +4 to +8 depending on your charisma, more if you get buffs or items for that score. Gee, now that's a tough choice.

That's why I said that I hope this is only partial information.

[Valairn]

Yeah, I noticed that too. But then again wizards has always been good at making lots of options, and only a few being good.

[Sebastrd]

I hope that this is only partial information.

It seems that every class has two "sub-classes", in this case the inspiring warlord and the tactical warlord. The problem here is that both are spelled out already. Requiring the character to pick four class skills out of six possibilities effectively means that most warlords will have most of the same skills - and of the two sub-classes, one focuses on int, therefore takes the int skill; and the other focuses on cha, therefore takes the cha skills. Furthermore, the one focusing on int takes the power that gives a huge bonus if you're focusing on int (Guarding attack), and likewise for the one focusing on charisma (Warlord’s Favor).

So either there is very limited diversity among builds at level one, or this is limited information. I'm hoping it is the latter.

And yeah, +1 bonuses really aren't that big of a deal. And yeah, someone will be along shortly to scream that everybody who expresses doubt about any aspect of 4E is a complete moron who never played anything above first edition.

If you compare this to the number of options available to a 1st-level 3.5 character, I think it's a definite improvement. With two distinct builds for each class in the PHB, it's almost like having 16 classes.

All characters will have most of the same skills. The difference will be in which ones are Trained (ie, get a +5). Again, I see this as a huge improvement over 3.5.

[Kurald Galain]

All characters will have most of the same skills. The difference will be in which ones are Trained (ie, get a +5). Again, I see this as a huge improvement over 3.5.

You apparently missed the fact that a warlord must choose four trained skills out of a total of six (some of which already follow from whether they're an int-lord or a cha-lord). So no, most warlords will not have much of a difference in which ones are trained.

You apparently also missed the build options in the 3E player's handbook, which already give two or three builds per class, which makes for 22-33 "almost classes" right there.

I'm sure there's extra options somewhere, but that really doesn't follow from this warlord article.

[Oslecamo]

Looks spiffy, but it's nothing new, in any sense. Still my choice for first 4e character.

What makes you choose the warlord? Only two classes have been spoilered so far(rogue and warlord).

On the other hand, I'm not very admired you wanting to play a leader class. I'll take either the wizard or the warlock, whoever ends up having more ditry tricks.

[EvilElitest]

Well, all my complaints come from the way they are handling the classes in general, as well as their justifications for the changes and the style of the new classes. That benign said withing the context of the new system, its seems pretty good, i agree that marshal needed to be expanded. however i don't like this "Every class has two subclasses within them that are both specific build". I' more in favor of "Every class has certain powers, and you build them the way you want"
I like the flavor however, and the name



And yeah, someone will be along shortly to scream that everybody who expresses doubt about any aspect of 4E is a complete moron who never played anything above first edition.

oh, i'll do it, i've always wanted to so it
um, how do this work again....oh yeah
1) Sarcastic claim of how the anti 4E people, or in fact anyone who expresses distaste for 4E are in fact deluded and irrational
2) Accusations of you people being liars, or all being sycophant to that one dude with the Napleon Avater
3) Accusations that the "anti 4E group" are deliberately causing pain and suffering on these threads/are all trolls
4) whines about how their actions are ruining my game
5) your all inexperienced and don't know how to play the game anyways

then other people will respond violently and all hell will break loose. ok, lets return to the nice thread
from
EE

[Rutee]

What makes you choose the warlord? Only two classes have been spoilered so far(rogue and warlord).

On the other hand, I'm not very admired you wanting to play a leader class. I'll take either the wizard or the warlock, whoever ends up having more ditry tricks.

Because of the two classes in the PHB that have the most right to beat people up with axes (The awesome kind, not the dwarven kind. I fully expect my starting weapon to be a Rickenbacker bass, model 4001S. Which I really only know about for one reason..), the Warlord conceptually appeals to me. And I thought of a fun concept for a Warlord before I did for a wizard.

[Learnedguy]

Because of the two classes in the PHB that have the most right to beat people up with axes (The awesome kind, not the dwarven kind. I fully expect my starting weapon to be a Rickenbacker bass, model 4001S. Which I really only know about for one reason..), the Warlord conceptually appeals to me. And I thought of a fun concept for a Warlord before I did for a wizard.

Agreed. I think I'll play a warlord as well. Mostly because I like telling people what to do:smallamused:

The more advanced abilities will probably be horribly fun for the whole party:smallbiggrin:

[Lord Tataraus]

I agree with EE, I am every skeptical about the whole "there are two builds for each class", sure the word it so that no matter what presence you choose you can mix powers, it seems like the "...provides bonuses to certain warlord powers" could make it so that you are severely nerfing yourself if you don't take the mentioned "...certain warlord powers." I will reiterate that I am skeptical, re: pessimistic about this, I will reserve my final judgment for when I read the actual PHB.


then other people will respond violently and all hell will break loose. ok, lets return to the nice thread
from
EE

1) Give a rational and professional argument debunking above points.
2) Explains how the quoted poster is being excessively violent and should calm down.
3) All this is explained in unoffensive terms and context, though will be quoted out of context/misread to ensure a violent comeback and more accusations from the quoted poster.

[Charity]

Yeah, I can see that, but think about it - you have to pick either the inspiring presence ability, or the tactical presence. Now suppose you pick inspiring... are you going to pick Guarding attack, or Warlord’s Favor? One gives a flat +2 bonus, the other +4 to +8 depending on your charisma, more if you get buffs or items for that score. Gee, now that's a tough choice.

That's why I said that I hope this is only partial information.

my emphasis
They have stated that there will be no item boosts to stats, and along those lines I'd be inclined to speculate that long term buffs to stats will be similarly abandoned.
That said, it seems that some of those powers are more widely apealing than others... but it's early days [etc, blah] also small bonuses will maintain their significance level on level as the maths scales AC/to hit, much better... that does of course mean that +4 is even more significant.

[Rutee]

I agree with EE, I am every skeptical about the whole "there are two builds for each class", sure the word it so that no matter what presence you choose you can mix powers, it seems like the "...provides bonuses to certain warlord powers" could make it so that you are severely nerfing yourself if you don't take the mentioned "...certain warlord powers." I will reiterate that I am skeptical, re: pessimistic about this, I will reserve my final judgment for when I read the actual PHB.

I find this an odd complaint. All we've seen, period, is power selection. What comprises "Builds" now? Well, three things, in any realistic sense.
1: Class Choices. Classes are chosen, primarily, for Class Abilities (Spells inclusive), and Skill Points/Class Skills (Primarily if you need it for PrC entry),
2: Feat Selection
3: Itemization.

4e will instead have
1: Power Choices (Including 'Do I take this feat, or do I take Racial Powers/Do I multiclass? Also note that we haven't seen PrCs Paragon Paths or Epic Progressions in any real detail, and that the options presented solely in the 3.5 PHB are not that great in any case)
2: Feat Selection (Which we have seen absolutely nothing of, to my knowledge. About all we know is that Multiclassing and I think Racial Power selection can be done through Feats, and that Feats are more common in 4e)
3: Itemization (With a focus instead on selecting items for the Powers they grant, rather then on stat changes. To our knowledge)

[illathid]

Well, they've said that there should be around 80 powers for every class, which gives us around 4 choices of powers every time one becomes available (and that doesn't included at-will powers or those gained Paragon Paths or Epic Destinies). Given that I think there will be more possible builds within a given class then what WotC gives us as examples.

Hmm... lets do some math to check.

Possible combinations of encounter and daily powers by level
1st: 16
6th: 4,096
11th: 262,144
16th: 1,048,576
21st: 1,048,576
26th: 4,194,304
30th: 4,194,304

Again this is not counting at-will powers or those gained prestige paths or epic destinies. The possible combinations will only be greater when you add in racial powers, those gained through the yet to be revealed multiclassing mechanic, and those gained through feats (like the sample cleric's "Channel Divinity: Power of Amaunator" power).

Because of that, and the reasons Rutee mentions, I'm really not too worried about there being only a couple of possible builds per class.

[Lord Tataraus]

I find this an odd complaint. All we've seen, period, is power selection. What comprises "Builds" now? Well, three things, in any realistic sense.
1: Class Choices. Classes are chosen, primarily, for Class Abilities (Spells inclusive), and Skill Points/Class Skills (Primarily if you need it for PrC entry),
2: Feat Selection
3: Itemization.

4e will instead have
1: Power Choices (Including 'Do I take this feat, or do I take Racial Powers/Do I multiclass? Also note that we haven't seen PrCs Paragon Paths or Epic Progressions in any real detail, and that the options presented solely in the 3.5 PHB are not that great in any case)
2: Feat Selection (Which we have seen absolutely nothing of, to my knowledge. About all we know is that Multiclassing and I think Racial Power selection can be done through Feats, and that Feats are more common in 4e)
3: Itemization (With a focus instead on selecting items for the Powers they grant, rather then on stat changes. To our knowledge)

As I said, I am not making judgment, only looking at it from a pessimistic viewpoint. With what we have so far, if it is not handled correctly it seems that power choices will be predetermined based the "build" you choose. You might say that that is how it is in 3.5, well for things like the fighter I will agree, and that's why I don't like the fighter. I much prefer Warblade or casters because you can customize a lot without necessarily changing the goal of the build. Diamond Mind, Tiger Claw, and Iron Heart will meet the same goal, and thus the same build but with some variations on how to reach that goal.

[Oslecamo]

1: Power Choices (Including 'Do I take this feat, or do I take Racial Powers/Do I multiclass? Also note that we haven't seen PrCs Paragon Paths or Epic Progressions in any real detail, and that the options presented solely in the 3.5 PHB are not that great in any case)
2: Feat Selection (Which we have seen absolutely nothing of, to my knowledge. About all we know is that Multiclassing and I think Racial Power selection can be done through Feats, and that Feats are more common in 4e)
3: Itemization (With a focus instead on selecting items for the Powers they grant, rather then on stat changes. To our knowledge)

We know somestuff about feats. They're just as 3.x feats. You gain them as you level up, some of them have pre requisites, others don't. The only diference is that you get more of them. From the DMG excerpt, a 14th level character has 7 feats, three of those were gained at 11th, 12th and 14th level. We also know you can retrain them, and for no cost for what it seems. We also know some feats are only available at higher tiers, and that higher tier feats will be strictly better than lower tier feats.

As for items, even if they don't rise your scores, they still give bonus to hit/damage/AC, the game expects you to have them.

They even said it it's impossible to make a dex based defender because the only way to get bigger AC at higher levels is to get heavy magic armor.

[Kurald Galain]

We know somestuff about feats. They're just as 3.x feats.

That is incorrect. We know that 4E feats focus on giving you relatively minor bonuses to powers you already possess (like spell focus, weapon spec, etc), and that the feats that give you new abilities (like power attack, or natural spell, and so forth) will instead be class powers.

[Charity]

...They even said it it's impossible to make a dex based defender because the only way to get bigger AC at higher levels is to get heavy magic armor.

Can you remember where this was said? I cannot see why, as light armour allows a dex/int bonus, although this bonus will not increase, the magical armour bonus will in exactly the same way as heavy armour.

leather AC +2 + Int +4 = 16
Scale AC +6 = 16

add magical bonuses to either and you'll get the same AC.

The exception to this is that I have heard, somewhere that fighters can get a class skill/feat/something or other that allows them to use dex in heavy armour... though that would lead me back to a dex based defender not only being possible but at an advantage.

[JaxGaret]

Well, they've said that there should be around 80 powers for every class, which gives us around 4 choices of powers every time one becomes available (and that doesn't included at-will powers or those gained Paragon Paths or Epic Destinies). Given that I think there will be more possible builds within a given class then what WotC gives us as examples.

They've said that there's 80 total encounter + daily powers for each class?

Isn't there a power for each level? A 1st level encounter power, 2nd level encounter power etc.? If there are say 50 encounter powers and 30 daily powers per class, that would mean that that there is usually going to be two encounter powers to choose from and a single daily power per level.

Or am I missing something?

[Starsinger]

Even if there are only two "builds" per class that's 16 builds, and if each build is fundamentally different, that's almost like having 16 classes. And let's say each class has two paragon path options, that's 16 paragon paths, and if you can get either of the warlord's paragon paths from either warlord build that means that a paragon warlord has four options. Which expands it to 32 different options. And if each class has two epic paths it ends up expanding the options to 64, which is pretty good if you ask me.

Now, that's if paragon and epic paths are tied to your class and that they don't have requirements like "Must have a Martial power of level X or higher".

[illathid]

They've said that there's 80 total encounter + daily powers for each class?

Well in a blog post one of the dev's said he was done the first draft of the druid and that he had made 80 or so powers for it. However, as a model it fits with everything we've seen of the classes so far.



Isn't there a power for each level? A 1st level encounter power, 2nd level encounter power etc.? If there are say 50 encounter powers and 30 daily powers per class, that would mean that that there is usually going to be two encounter powers to choose from and a single daily power per level.

Or am I missing something?

You do not gain powers every level. If you look at the Tiers of Play Excerpt (http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ex/20080416a) you can see exactly at which levels you get powers. But it had been seen that one doesn't get powers at every level from some example page of the PHB that they had at D&DXP (Examine them here (http://www.enworld.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=32833) and here (http://www.enworld.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=32834)).

[JaxGaret]

You do not gain powers every level. If you look at the Tiers of Play Excerpt (http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ex/20080416a) you can see exactly at which levels you get powers. But it had been seen that one doesn't get powers at every level from some example page of the PHB that they had at D&DXP (Examine them here (http://www.enworld.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=32833) and here (http://www.enworld.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=32834)).

Thanks a lot illathid! I hadn't seen those before :smallsmile:

[EvilElitest]

I agree with EE, I am every skeptical about the whole "there are two builds for each class", sure the word it so that no matter what presence you choose you can mix powers, it seems like the "...provides bonuses to certain warlord powers" could make it so that you are severely nerfing yourself if you don't take the mentioned "...certain warlord powers." I will reiterate that I am skeptical, re: pessimistic about this, I will reserve my final judgment for when I read the actual PHB.



personally, even with all of the options is seems sort of, um, simplified isn't the right word, would it be arbitrary? Even with options, the general build (not the powers) is sort of standardized . there are two specific kinds of warlord, each that has a different "feel" or use. In effect, Starsinger is right, we have 16 different classes.

But personally i don't really like this for two reasons

1) It feels, um arbitrary? I mean, remember WoW (i am not making a WoW reference because i think 4E is turning into WoW, don't start that argument, it is just a mild comparison, calm down) you have the classes right. And each class has certain paths, and so you become a stun lock rogue or a shadow priest or what not right. And you given certain powers that you can pick and choose from in a particular order, and the point of the game is to obtain the powers you need in order to get the most mechanically effective build. It feels sort of like that, you have a lot of options, but they are more just altering with an already brought about build rather than creating your own build

Ah i lost it never mind, that is just general musings
2) I do however am more adamant about the whole Each class is in fact two classes thing. just a touch on the nature of classes, in a system where we have classes like D&D, the idea that each class is the embodiment of a different archtype. Clerics are the warrior priests who can fight, heal, buff ect, Wizards are the intellegent readers who use books to obtain power, Sorcerers use inner blood line, Warlords are the commanding presence ect. You take your arch type and you go with it and try to build new ideas around it.

So the idea of each one being two arch types seems somewhat limiting and rather defeating the the purpose of classes
from
EE



1) Give a rational and professional argument debunking above points.
2) Explains how the quoted poster is being excessively violent and should calm down.
3) All this is explained in unoffensive terms and context, though will be quoted out of context/misread to ensure a violent comeback and more accusations from the quoted poster.

Oh a 4E thread? Impossible i refuse to believe it. Calling anyone who criticizes what i like irrational is far more effective:smallwink:
honestly through, that is a far better solution

[Terraspaz]

In 3.5, I had the most fun playing a bard, of the various classes. For whatever reasons, it fit with my personality the easiest, thus I felt more comfortable playing that class than any of the others I tried.

A friend recommended the warlord class as a substitute in 4th ed, since bard won't be released for some time yet. While tactically, the warlord is very similar to the 3.5 bard, flavorwise, it seems very different. (Roaming adventurer sorta deal)

Is there another class I should be looking more into, or is warlord the closest I'm going to get for a while?

[skywalker]

+1 Skepticism.
+1 to the "Warlord with be my first 4e character" list.

I'm excited about half-elves being considered "good" warlords, because "half-elf warlord" is the first thing I thought when my mind read that half-elves were not supposed to suck anymore.

I am very skeptical about this "inspiring warlord OR tactical warlord." In skywalker's world, it would say "inspiring AND tactical warlord," MAD be damned! Like other doubters, I am bothered by these seemingly narrow path choices.

To the ones who say I am being too skeptical or jumping to conclusions, I would like to point out that everything Wizards has released regarding 4.0 has indicated that this is the situation, and if this was not the case, I am sure Wizards pays attention to what is being said around the web, they have had ample opportunity to modify their propaganda preview material.


Even if there are only two "builds" per class that's 16 builds, and if each build is fundamentally different, that's almost like having 16 classes.

It is not like having 16 classes. It is like having 16 very limited, clearly defined options. Not 16 classes.

As well, arguing that 80 different powers mean ka-trillions of different builds is also wrong. It means you have 80 different powers to choose from, not 80 different character options to choose from. Your power choice is not going to have a specific impact on how your character plays. At least, from what I can tell. I've played ToB and powers were just something cool my character did, not who my character was.

And seriously, I am tired of all this dumbing down that's being done. "All allies within 5 squares"? Seriously?! They couldn't say within 25ft? No, it has to be 5 squares, because everyone is going to play 4e with D&D Minis(TM) and battlemats. Ugh.

[SamTheCleric]

They took out the "5 feet per square" and just made it squares. If you want to call it 25', call it 25'... either way, when it comes to a grid... It'll be counting out 5 squares :smallbiggrin:

[Starsinger]

And seriously, I am tired of all this dumbing down that's being done. "All allies within 5 squares"? Seriously?! They couldn't say within 25ft? No, it has to be 5 squares, because everyone is going to play 4e with D&D Minis(TM) and battlemats. Ugh.

Cuz y'know, everyone plays using feet. 5 Squares can be 25 feet, 5 meters, 5 inches (if you're playing a micro sized game or somethin) 5 miles if you're playing some ginormous space combat game, 5 arbitrary unit of measurement if you're one of those really intensive DMs who make their home brew worlds from scratch including measurements...

[Moff Chumley]

See, that was American ignorance/elitism right there... Squares was the politically correct thing to do, in any case.

[Artanis]

Oh FFS, here we go again, with the same people b****ing about the same things that have been debunked a dozen times. Can't we all for once - just ONCE - look at a preview without declaring that WotC is attempting to destroy all that is good and holy on this Earth?

[EvilElitest]

Oh FFS, here we go again, with the same people b****ing about the same things that have been debunked a dozen times. Can't we all for once - just ONCE - look at a preview without declaring that WotC is attempting to destroy all that is good and holy on this Earth?

I don't think "Lying to prove a point" actually counts as debunking
from
EE

[Cybren]

See, that was American ignorance/elitism right there... Squares was the politically correct thing to do, in any case.
I think a medieval fantasy game using the metric system would be a bit anachronistic in my opinion, and using ambiguous 'squares' make it feel all the more artificial. Not that just multiplying the number of squares by your taste for distance wouldn't work. I'll probably just change "squares" for "yards"

[Snooder]

Personally, i found the most revealing thing about the Warlord preview was actually the note about the "Reliable" keyword for the Brute Strike fighter power.

Sure, the stuff about Warlord's is interesting, but nothing new. They swing weapons and help others swing weapons better. But the use of the keyword "reliable" on fighter powers (i'm assuming it'll be common to many fighter powers) is intriguing because it addresses one of the few trepidations I had about 4E, i.e. how to make the fighter be the best at melee combat without making other melee combatants irrelevant.

If you didn't notice, the "reliable" keyword makes it so that even if a power fails to connect, you can try again and keep trying until it lands. So the fighter and warlord powers really do about the same damage, but the fighter's power will work while the warlord has to hope the damage connects.

[Deepblue706]

I'm not too impressed. I hope this doesn't go down the road I think it will - I guess I'll have to wait for the PHB to be sure, tho.

[Mewtarthio]

In 3.5, I had the most fun playing a bard, of the various classes. For whatever reasons, it fit with my personality the easiest, thus I felt more comfortable playing that class than any of the others I tried.

A friend recommended the warlord class as a substitute in 4th ed, since bard won't be released for some time yet. While tactically, the warlord is very similar to the 3.5 bard, flavorwise, it seems very different. (Roaming adventurer sorta deal)

Is there another class I should be looking more into, or is warlord the closest I'm going to get for a while?

That depends on why you played a Bard in the first place. A Warlord, you'll notice, is based around running into battle and hitting enemies to give his allies bonuses. Which, incidentally, is the same thing for the Cleric. If you want to hang back outside of combat, you'll probably need to be a Wizard. Warlock would work, too, except you're about hanging outside of battle and dealing lots of damage. The "Bard" archetype (hanging outside of battle and giving your allies bonuses) will probably be an Arcane Leader class, and I don't think they have that in 4e core.

The main thing that worries me about the Warlord is it seems to be a little too similar to the Cleric.

[wodan46]

Generally, I see 3 levels of specialization

Primary: Class
Secondary: Race, Ability Scores, Class Feature Choice
Tertiary: Powers, Feats, Skills
Class Features
Remember that only 2 classes have been confirmed to have a class feature choice, and we have no idea how many powers are actually tied to them. So far all the powers we've seen for them are encounter powers, which are neither your most powerful finishers, nor your basic attacks.

Furthermore, these class features seem to be trended based on what your preferred ability scores are, which means that even if you were not required to have Inspiring Presence to receive the charisma bonus or Tactical Presence for the intelligence bonus, you would still have picked 1 power or the other based on the quality of your ability score anyway. The Presences limit what you can do, but only to a very minor degree.

Skills
As for Skills, they deliberately merged many of them so that their were less skills to keep track of, but each 1 means considerably more.

Lets review Warlord skills:
Athletics (Str), Diplomacy (Cha), Endurance (Con), Heal (Wis), History (Int), Intimidate (Cha)

Of the 6 class skills for the Warlord, 2 of them relate to Charisma and 1 to Intelligence. Of the 2 Cha skills, you probably don't want both Intimidate and Diplomacy. History is not a critical skill for the Tactical Presence warlord, who might pick a Cha skill just to be well rounded anyway. Some example skillsets both for the specializations and beyond:

Tactical Warlord: Athletics, Endurance, Diplomacy, History
Inspiring Warlord: Heal, Diplomacy, Endurance, History
Armchair Warlord: Diplomacy, History, Intimidate, Heal
Assault Warlord: Athletics, Endurance, Heal, Intimidate

[Nonah_Me]

Don't forget multi-classing.

[JaxGaret]

In 3.5, I had the most fun playing a bard, of the various classes. For whatever reasons, it fit with my personality the easiest, thus I felt more comfortable playing that class than any of the others I tried.

A friend recommended the warlord class as a substitute in 4th ed, since bard won't be released for some time yet. While tactically, the warlord is very similar to the 3.5 bard, flavorwise, it seems very different. (Roaming adventurer sorta deal)

Is there another class I should be looking more into, or is warlord the closest I'm going to get for a while?

The closest thing to a Bard in 4e before any splatbooks come out will probably be a Rogue or Wizard multiclassed into Warlord. Or, if it's at all possible, a multiclass of all three of those classes.

[Jayabalard]

Oh FFS, here we go again, with the same people b****ing about the same things that have been debunked a dozen times. Can't we all for once - just ONCE - look at a preview without declaring that WotC is attempting to destroy all that is good and holy on this Earth?Hi strawman, welcome to the thread.

[skywalker]

Cuz y'know, everyone plays using feet. 5 Squares can be 25 feet, 5 meters, 5 inches (if you're playing a micro sized game or somethin) 5 miles if you're playing some ginormous space combat game, 5 arbitrary unit of measurement if you're one of those really intensive DMs who make their home brew worlds from scratch including measurements...


See, that was American ignorance/elitism right there... Squares was the politically correct thing to do, in any case.

Yes, I'm sure homebrew DMs and political correctness were exactly why Wizards worded it that way, and not for synergy with their dumb stupid(yes, it is dumb AND stupid) gotta catch 'em all random pack minis game, which they're trying to make an integral part of D&D.

Furthermore, it is quite obvious that one square=five feet. How are you supposed to take a five foot step is one square isn't five feet?
Player: Oh, yeah, I take a five foot step and drink my potion.
DM: Okay, you take an attack of opportunity
Player: :smallmad:

Please don't argue with me just for the sake of arguing, and don't insult me.

[illathid]

That argument doesn't work as there aren't any five foot steps any more, now one can "shift" one aquare as a move action.

:smallwink:

[Artanis]

Hi strawman, welcome to the thread.
I'm just getting close to wits end from seeing the exact same arguments over the exact same complaints for months.

[RTGoodman]

I've been planning for a while that my first 4E character is gonna be a Warlord. After the preview I know I still want to play one, but I'm not very inspired by those particular powers.

Also, besides the specifics of the class (skills, powers, etc.), I don't think there's really anything new in this preview. Of course, 4E is coming out in what, less than two months? I guess I'll just have to wait 'til then to see everything.

[Starsinger]

Furthermore, it is quite obvious that one square=five feet. How are you supposed to take a five foot step is one square isn't five feet?
Player: Oh, yeah, I take a five foot step and drink my potion.

Please don't argue with me just for the sake of arguing, and don't insult me.

That works in reverse you know. Since you care that one square equals five feet, and I don't care if it's a square or 5 feet, you can just remember that a power with a range of 10 squares is 50 feet.

[Oslecamo]

The exception to this is that I have heard, somewhere that fighters can get a class skill/feat/something or other that allows them to use dex in heavy armour... though that would lead me back to a dex based defender not only being possible but at an advantage.

That's what I meant. Dex alone+light armor doesn't cut it anymore. ALL defenders want to go around with heavy magic plate, and those who don't upgrade to it will end having lower AC than fighters with magic heavy plate, since fighters have that class ability wich allows them to add full dex to AC with
heavy armor.

[Rutee]

That works in reverse you know. Since you care that one square equals five feet, and I don't care if it's a square or 5 feet, you can just remember that a power with a range of 10 squares is 50 feet.

I was going to say "Well that /is/ an extra step of math that wasn't there before.." Then I remembered I was wrong, because you had to derive squares in the AoE from feet, if you used a playmat like you were (apparently) supposed to.

Also I'm pretty sure w'ell at least still see tanks in Medium Armor. Not sure about Light, but I do hope so.

[skywalker]

That works in reverse you know. Since you care that one square equals five feet, and I don't care if it's a square or 5 feet, you can just remember that a power with a range of 10 squares is 50 feet.

Yes, it does, the point that I was making was that, with 4th edition, D&D seems to be becoming more and more like a clever marketing campaign for D&D minis, along with assorted dungeon tiles, battlemats, and other tools. My current DM thinks DM'ing is impossible without all of the above, which, while perfectly acceptable as his opinion, is not something I'm comfortable with Wizards trying to brainwash into me.

It still makes sense to describe powers with ranges of feet, not squares, because feet is less ambiguous than squares.

[Tren]

That's what I meant. Dex alone+light armor doesn't cut it anymore. ALL defenders want to go around with heavy magic plate, and those who don't upgrade to it will end having lower AC than fighters with magic heavy plate, since fighters have that class ability wich allows them to add full dex to AC with
heavy armor.

While that seems like the case with fighter and warlord, I would think a dex-based light armored defender would probably need unique enough mechanics to merit it's own class. In all honesty a lightly-armored defender seems like a strange character type to go for, do you have any particular inspirations in mind for such a character?

Otherwise for a striker, the rogue still seems like the most intuitive choice especially with it's slightly less skill-monkey bent and more swashbuckley flavor.

[Artanis]

It still makes sense to describe powers with ranges of feet, not squares, because feet is less ambiguous than squares.
*looks at SRD* Hrm, literally every single measurement is in 5-foot increments.

*cracks open Eberron Campaign Setting* Hrm, the adventure module in the back has maps that are covered in....squares. Squares that just so happen to be 5ft.

Did you ever think that maybe, just maybe, DnD was already doing things in squares and they're just saying as much now?

Personally, if I'm going to be using squares anyways - which was already the case in 3e - I want to be using squares, instead of being told things in feet and then "getting" to convert to squares.

[EvilElitest]

Hi strawman, welcome to the thread.

That is amazing

I'm just getting close to wits end from seeing the exact same arguments over the exact same complaints for months
Considering your methods often require misinformation, i wouldn't be surprised

Anyways, am i the only one who finds it odd taht on a 4E thing that i didn't hate so many other people seem to dislike

personally, i don't care about the squares, but i am worried about the minatures relationship with the game
from
EE

[Xefas]

My Opinions.

Complaining about the difference between calling something 5 feet and calling it 1 square is just as mindbogglingly inane as complaining that some people call soda "Pop" and some call it "Soda". It's the same thing; why even argue about it? I can't even begin to comprehend what would bring someone to choose that, out of all things readily available about the new edition, to complain about. It's so insignificant and trivial! Though, I suppose if that's the biggest concern some people have with the new edition, then the new edition is turning out pretty well.

The "Suggested Builds" are no different than the suggested builds in the 3.5 Player's Handbook. They had them there as well, and no one yammers on about how they're sucking the fun out of everything because they're *suggested*, not *mandatory*. They're a help for people who don't want to spend the time to write up a character or who are new and want to get the hang of things. Extra help is good, even if not everyone will use it.

And on the matter of 4th edition being a giant conspiracy to make you buy mats and miniatures, well, that could be. However, I will say, from personal experience, my group has spent a grand total of $16, and we have a perfectly good gridded dry-erase map, and all the widgets and trinkets we need to run even large encounters, and we've been doing so almost as long as we're been playing 3rd edition. If everyone in the group brings a couple bucks, that's all you need.

Everything else, I feel, is a legitimate concern.
Not really, but I don't want to seem like a fanboy for 4th edition.

[Vortling]

I was going to say "Well that /is/ an extra step of math that wasn't there before.." Then I remembered I was wrong, because you had to derive squares in the AoE from feet, if you used a playmat like you were (apparently) supposed to.

Also I'm pretty sure w'ell at least still see tanks in Medium Armor. Not sure about Light, but I do hope so.

I'm guessing the Swordmage class they keep talking about will either run around in light or no armor with something akin to Mage Armor up during combat.

Warlord overall seems rather 'meh' to me. I do hope they manage to distinguish the cleric and warlord better in the full game. As it is it looks like they'll play similarly at early levels.

[wodan46]

What the 2 leader classes grant their allies:
Warlord: Many free actions, buffs, few heals
Cleric: Many heals, buffs, stun spells

Its true that they are both decently capable melee fighters that buff their allies, but the Cleric favors defensive boosts through heals and scaring enemies, while the Warlord tends to grants extra attacks and mobility boosts.

[TSGames]

Combat Leader
You and each ally within 10 squares who can see and hear you gain a +2 power bonus to initiative.

Darn... It looks like a handi-capable party is still not feasible in 4th edition.

[Moff Chumley]

A what now?

(Also, sorry 'bout the American Elitism thing... wasn't appropriate.)

[skywalker]

A what now?

(Also, sorry 'bout the American Elitism thing... wasn't appropriate.)

I appreciate the apology.

I'm not criticizing the squares themselves. My point is that not only does it seem like they think we're not intelligent enough to convert feet into squares, it also implies that you are expected to play the game with minis. Which I don't appreciate. As has been stated, I hate the idea and the execution of the minis game.

Perhaps I'm paranoid, but I think I have some evidence, Wizards made their bones selling Magic: The Gathering, they know how to get nerds hooked on junk using the "collector urge." I see the same thing going on in the minis game, you buy a "booster" which may or may not contain what you want.

I think they're trying to create an association in your mind so that you "need" the minis(and associated tools, not just a dry-erase mat, but dungeon tiles, etc.)

[Rutee]

Oh they certainly are. I don't think otherwise. I just don't care. Corporations are always out to advertise to you. I just won't buy into their crap. A Dry Erase Mat and marker is plenty (And I don't think Wizards sells either. THey didn't when I bought 3.0 at least)

But as to "not intelligent enough", if you're playing with a mat with squares, I think it's a given that you can at least count out 5 foot increments. If they just list it as squares, it comes to the same thing, minus a step. Streamlining isn't quite the same thing as thinking you're an idiot.

[Mewtarthio]

Perhaps I'm paranoid, but I think I have some evidence, Wizards made their bones selling Magic: The Gathering, they know how to get nerds hooked on junk using the "collector urge." I see the same thing going on in the minis game, you buy a "booster" which may or may not contain what you want.

I think they're trying to create an association in your mind so that you "need" the minis(and associated tools, not just a dry-erase mat, but dungeon tiles, etc.)

...Paranoid? You're saying that you harbor a suspicion that a large corporation wants to squeeze as much money as possible out of you, and you think that'd be considered paranoia?

Here's the thing: There's no use in complaining about WotC trying to take advantage of its consumers. That's a given. It's inherent in the corporate structure. If the CEO is a nice guy who wants to leave a pile of money untouched because he's got moral qualms about taking it, then the stockholders will throw him out and put someone in charge who'll give them bigger dividends.

Now, with that out of the way: Yes, they do want you to buy their minis, and they will do everything in their power to get you to do so (short of extortion and other illegal activities, because those things are too risky). However, they also know that some people don't want to buy minis, so they'll make their product work without them (ideally, these people will buy the minis later, but if not, at least they bought the game). Therefore, although WotC will subtly pressure you into buying minis, they will not overtly force you to do so.

In short: No, you don't have to worry about having to buy minis, so there's no sense in complaining about their marketing techniques.

[Oslecamo]

I'm counting the days to when MTG and D&D become one, and players will have to build wonky characters because the really good stuff is ultra rare and sells for 40 dollars a piece in the secondary market.

Just you wait.

[Starsinger]

I'm counting the days to when MTG and D&D become one, and players will have to build wonky characters because the really good stuff is ultra rare and sells for 40 dollars a piece in the secondary market.

Just you wait.

"Wow! My D&D booster pack got me... level 5, level 2, Elf, Wizard, Human, and a Beholder! Neato!"

[EvilElitest]

...Paranoid? You're saying that you harbor a suspicion that a large corporation wants to squeeze as much money as possible out of you, and you think that'd be considered paranoia?

Here's the thing: There's no use in complaining about WotC trying to take advantage of its consumers. That's a given. It's inherent in the corporate structure. If the CEO is a nice guy who wants to leave a pile of money untouched because he's got moral qualms about taking it, then the stockholders will throw him out and put someone in charge who'll give them bigger dividends.

OH i know the justification, i just don't think this is a good excuse. If a company screws with you to make money, they are still screwing with you. A company does what it can to make money, but they are ways they can do it without screwing people over as much. The fact it pisses people off still makes a difference. :smallmad:



Now, with that out of the way: Yes, they do want you to buy their minis, and they will do everything in their power to get you to do so (short of extortion and other illegal activities, because those things are too risky). However, they also know that some people don't want to buy minis, so they'll make their product work without them (ideally, these people will buy the minis later, but if not, at least they bought the game). Therefore, although WotC will subtly pressure you into buying minis, they will not overtly force you to do so.

True, and i thank WotC for not making them a super requirement. It is still an annoyance however.

Nice avater
from
EE

[Green Bean]

A what now?

I assume that DnDestruction's making a joke that you can't have blind or deaf party members, as they wouldn't get the benefits of the Warlord's bonus.

[Hurlbut]

I assume that DnDestruction's making a joke that you can't have blind or deaf party members, as they wouldn't get the benefits of the Warlord's bonus.Hey I resemble that remark as I'm deaf! oh wait...:smalltongue:

[RukiTanuki]

Is the issue with using a grid instead of keeping the battle in your head? Or, is the issue with "needing" to purchase miniatures?

My players appreciate a battle mat and minis because they like seeing the tactical layout and planning accordingly. (Of course, they treat it as an abstraction, and the battle in their heads, as well as my descriptions, remains as fluid and interesting as if they relied solely on my words. I just don't have to remind them that they're 20 feet northwest of the orc and 10 feet east of Jozan.)

However, I frequently don't have even a vaguely appropriate miniature. So, I took to printing out small strips of paper, 1" by 5", with the MM picture printed on a 1x2 inch section. I'd fold those into stand-up triangles and use them on the map.

I'm inclined to say that the people who will use a map appreciate having the values listed in the measurement they're going to be counting out. I know for myself, it's easier to multiply square measurements by 5 the few times I need a measurement in feet, than to divide by 5 every time I need to count squares on a map. This is useful to me and my players. I don't know anyone personally for whom this causes them more effort, not less.

So, I'm wondering: is it really about "forcing the mat"? If so, is this really worse than 3.5, whose Combat chapter uses miniatures diagrams exclusively, and describes cover via instructions like "draw a line from the corner of one square to the center of the other square"? Or, is this about miniatures, which (short of Wizards destroying my printer and tokens) can't be forced upon me any more than any previous edition?

---

P.S. Warlords vs. Clerics: I believe it was mentioned previously that Warlords will have virtually no ranged powers, while WP:R&C mentioned that Clerics would have several ranged spells (and indeed, the playtest Cleric had one).

[horseboy]

Okay, about the article, it reminds me a lot of how I built my fighter. Yeah, if I was strapped to a chair and a gun held to my head, and demanded I play 4th I'd totally go warlord.


Oh FFS, here we go again, with the same people b****ing about the same things that have been debunked a dozen times. Can't we all for once - just ONCE - look at a preview without declaring that WotC is attempting to destroy all that is good and holy on this Earth?
Okay, you owe me a new keyboard from that spit take. WotC good and holy. :smallamused:


Is the issue with using a grid instead of keeping the battle in your head? Or, is the issue with "needing" to purchase miniatures?
Just that when I want to play Mordheim, I play Mordheim.

[RukiTanuki]

Just that when I want to play Mordheim, I play Mordheim.

Well, for that matter, when I want to play the latest successor to Chainmail: Rules for Medieval Miniatures by Gary Gygax and Jeff Perrin, I'll play D&D. :)

My understanding here (and admittedly, some of it is assumptions) is that:
* Most D&D players use a battle mat
* 4th Edition lists game measurements in battle mat increments
* Beyond this feet-to-squares change, 4th Edition utilizes and references the mat roughly equally as often as the 3.5 PHB (which used significantly more pictures of a battle mat than 3.0)
* 4th Edition players who don't use a battle mat (a group I assume to be in the minority) will multiply by 5 and continue playing by feet
* As a result, most players will now have distance measured in the very unit they most frequently use in play
* People who dislike 4e too much to ever use it are unaffected :)

I'm trying to avoid any judgment that either style of play is "better." Unless someone has better anecdotal evidence, however, it's my understanding that D&D is usually played on a battle grid. I know my players have tried and prefer the square measurements, and I believe others would agree. If this is about breaking verisimilitude because 4e has made game mechanics easier to use instead of more simulationist, I think I may just politely bow out of the remainder of the subject.

Edit: Gotta give Jeff credit too. :)

[Charity]

Furthermore, it is quite obvious that one square=five feet. How are you supposed to take a five foot step is one square isn't five feet?
Player: Oh, yeah, I take a five foot step and drink my potion.
DM: Okay, you take an attack of opportunity
Player: :smallmad:

Please don't argue with me just for the sake of arguing, and don't insult me.

Nyuk nyuk, did you know in original AD&D one square was 10'? I guess not.
There is no 5' step in 4th ed it's called a shift.
Also I imagine most folk here are arguing for the sake of it, I'd try to get used to it if I were you; no sense getting riled.

[EvilElitest]

Nyuk nyuk, did you know in original AD&D one square was 10'? I guess not.
There is no 5' step in 4th ed it's called a shift.
Also I imagine most folk here are arguing for the sake of it, I'd try to get used to it if I were you; no sense getting riled.

while i don't care about the mat changes, you still can't use an argument "don't like, DEAL WITH IT" as a valid point



So, I'm wondering: is it really about "forcing the mat"? If so, is this really worse than 3.5, whose Combat chapter uses miniatures diagrams exclusively, and describes cover via instructions like "draw a line from the corner of one square to the center of the other square"? Or, is this about miniatures, which (short of Wizards destroying my printer and tokens) can't be forced upon me any more than any previous edition?
in 3.5 those minis were simply a demonstration of visuals, not a translated game. Also in 3.0 they didn't even use minis
from
EE