Sacrosanct
Legend
No, this isn't about the warlord specifically, but a general discussion 
I'm gonna put on my game designer hat on and try to present this from a designer's perspective. While not one of the "big boys", I have been designing games for 30 years and even won awards!!! :O So I like to think I can put myself into that mindset fairly easily.
Since classes started appearing in Dragon Magazine*, there has been discussion about what sort of classes should be included. Discussions that have spiked when a new edition comes out. So...when coming out with a new edition, how do you choose which classes should be included, not just for the immediate PHB, but supplements as well. I think there is some criteria that must come into play to determine this:
* precedent: has the class existed in previous editions and/or does it have a clear established identity with D&D?
* popularity: can it be assured that plenty of people want the class and it will be played?
* theme: does it fit with a high fantasy RPG? I.e., a class like a pilot might fit for a modern or sci fi genre, but probably doesn't warrant an official class in D&D
* redundancy: is the class almost the exact same in function as another class
Generally, all classes will go through that review process and will be assigned priority, even if it's just an informal priority. Once that is done, the final step:
* balance: is the class relatively balanced with all the other classes.
So....what does that mean when it comes to classes like the warlord or artificer? If those classes pass the first four criteria, and higher priority classes have already been done, then there is no reason why there shouldn't be a warlord or artificer or whatever introduced into the game officially (assuming the developers are still creating that sort of content).
I'll address the first argument I hear against having a class like that in the game: "I don't like it/it doesn't fit well with how I personally run games." My answer to that is, "That's not a very good reason to omit the class from the game as a whole and from every table. I don't like bards, but I don't think they should be banned. They meet all the criteria, so the only real answer is that I don't play with them. Just because the bard is in the book doesn't mean I'm forced to play one or they revoke my geek cred."
The second argument right after that one is "why have the class if you can do nearly the same thing by doing this class, this subclass, these feats, etc?" There is some merit to this argument, however in every discussion, I've seen people offer ideas that make the new proposed class unique enough to have it's own niche. It's also a slippery slope argument because I could say the same thing about rangers, or other classes/subclasses. "Just be an eldritch fighter with archery fighting style and blah blah skills and blah blah feats..." And yet we do have a ranger class.
But here's where it gets tricky, and comes up in every thread about potential new classes (not just the warlord): the final point--balance with other classes. Nearly everyone from a previous edition has a favorite class type. But what I see too often is people will try to import that class and its mechanics into the new edition without taking this final bullet point into consideration. For example in one of those warlord threads going around, it was argued that a warlord should be able to do things equivalent to, and as often as, a haste spell (and other spells). But there was no give. I.e., the warlord would still have all the abilities of a fighter, PLUS all the other extra stuff of a wizard or cleric, or whatever.
And thus I see two problems in nearly every thread: People who want a new class to represent a favorite class are unwilling to compromise to balance with the rest of the classes (I hear hyperbole like "you're oppressing me you h4ter!"), and on the other side are people who want to ban the class for little other reason than they don't like it. Not everyone, of course, but those types of comments always show up and seem to dominate.
Therefore, it is of my opinion, when we talk about new classes (and again, not just the warlord), if you can make an argument that meets all of the top four criteria, and present your proposal in a way that meets the final bullet point, then I would have a very hard time arguing against it (as a designer). "I don't like it" counter arguments don't hold water. That's a "your table" legitimate argument, not a "game as a whole" argument. If someone is going to put out the effort to offer a proposal that meets all four criteria, they at the very least deserve a well thought out counter argument that relies on objective points rather than emotional reactions.
Sorry for being wordy.
*technically all of those classes were for NPCs only, but everyone wanted to play them as PCs anyway
I'm gonna put on my game designer hat on and try to present this from a designer's perspective. While not one of the "big boys", I have been designing games for 30 years and even won awards!!! :O So I like to think I can put myself into that mindset fairly easily.Since classes started appearing in Dragon Magazine*, there has been discussion about what sort of classes should be included. Discussions that have spiked when a new edition comes out. So...when coming out with a new edition, how do you choose which classes should be included, not just for the immediate PHB, but supplements as well. I think there is some criteria that must come into play to determine this:
* precedent: has the class existed in previous editions and/or does it have a clear established identity with D&D?
* popularity: can it be assured that plenty of people want the class and it will be played?
* theme: does it fit with a high fantasy RPG? I.e., a class like a pilot might fit for a modern or sci fi genre, but probably doesn't warrant an official class in D&D
* redundancy: is the class almost the exact same in function as another class
Generally, all classes will go through that review process and will be assigned priority, even if it's just an informal priority. Once that is done, the final step:
* balance: is the class relatively balanced with all the other classes.
So....what does that mean when it comes to classes like the warlord or artificer? If those classes pass the first four criteria, and higher priority classes have already been done, then there is no reason why there shouldn't be a warlord or artificer or whatever introduced into the game officially (assuming the developers are still creating that sort of content).
I'll address the first argument I hear against having a class like that in the game: "I don't like it/it doesn't fit well with how I personally run games." My answer to that is, "That's not a very good reason to omit the class from the game as a whole and from every table. I don't like bards, but I don't think they should be banned. They meet all the criteria, so the only real answer is that I don't play with them. Just because the bard is in the book doesn't mean I'm forced to play one or they revoke my geek cred."
The second argument right after that one is "why have the class if you can do nearly the same thing by doing this class, this subclass, these feats, etc?" There is some merit to this argument, however in every discussion, I've seen people offer ideas that make the new proposed class unique enough to have it's own niche. It's also a slippery slope argument because I could say the same thing about rangers, or other classes/subclasses. "Just be an eldritch fighter with archery fighting style and blah blah skills and blah blah feats..." And yet we do have a ranger class.
But here's where it gets tricky, and comes up in every thread about potential new classes (not just the warlord): the final point--balance with other classes. Nearly everyone from a previous edition has a favorite class type. But what I see too often is people will try to import that class and its mechanics into the new edition without taking this final bullet point into consideration. For example in one of those warlord threads going around, it was argued that a warlord should be able to do things equivalent to, and as often as, a haste spell (and other spells). But there was no give. I.e., the warlord would still have all the abilities of a fighter, PLUS all the other extra stuff of a wizard or cleric, or whatever.
And thus I see two problems in nearly every thread: People who want a new class to represent a favorite class are unwilling to compromise to balance with the rest of the classes (I hear hyperbole like "you're oppressing me you h4ter!"), and on the other side are people who want to ban the class for little other reason than they don't like it. Not everyone, of course, but those types of comments always show up and seem to dominate.
Therefore, it is of my opinion, when we talk about new classes (and again, not just the warlord), if you can make an argument that meets all of the top four criteria, and present your proposal in a way that meets the final bullet point, then I would have a very hard time arguing against it (as a designer). "I don't like it" counter arguments don't hold water. That's a "your table" legitimate argument, not a "game as a whole" argument. If someone is going to put out the effort to offer a proposal that meets all four criteria, they at the very least deserve a well thought out counter argument that relies on objective points rather than emotional reactions.
Sorry for being wordy.
*technically all of those classes were for NPCs only, but everyone wanted to play them as PCs anyway
