Exclusive Bruce Cordell interview

[rounser]

And before someone says "Indo-chinese crap isn't fantasy", turn to Rakshasa and Naga in the MM. Indian monster. The Gold Dragon has a fu manchu, based on the Chinese dragons which are good. The werefox from the 2e MM was practically the Kitsune. I'd dare say that Elementals are almost a Shinto-based phenomena.

What works well as an NPC cameo (or even, entire race of NPCs) doesn't necessarily work on the PC side of the fence. Similarly to the way that the existence of a troll PC affects the nature of the game much, much more than a troll NPC, because the regeneration features in the game all the time, rather than just for a few rounds in one encounter, choices of PC class and race affect the tone and feel of the game with a rakshasa PC much more than the odd encounter with a genie or rakshasa will.

The game with a PC troll in it will change in tone to that of a game with a monster as one of the heroes. If you want your monsters to seem monstrous, they probably will seem less so with a PC troll in the party - it's a juxtaposition, relative contrast thing. And you've invited into the campaign all the stuff about issues with entering a town or a tavern, people being worried the troll will eat them etc. Not necessarily bad or undesirable, but something to think about. Probably best kept out of the PHB to stop it becoming overplayed, because what's in the PHB kind of rules the nature of the game.

That said, I've got no problem with monks, but can understand the viewpoint of those who do. Push come to shove, they probably do belong in a supplement dedicated to them, rather than the PHB.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Double weapons, tanglefoot bags and sunrods are easier to ignore than the name of an entire class. If they renamed "fighter" to a misnomer like "guerilla", would you care? Would it affect your ability to buy into the game world?

Hmm. I'm not sure that's a viable comparison. "Warlord" has connotations and implications that make it (IMO) unsuitable for the name of a class. But in a purely descriptive term, it's accurate: it's a class that leads in battle. OTOH, there's not just a connotative and implicative difference between "fighter" and "guerrilla," but a definitional one as well.

But that said, yes, I've ignored class names. I've run urban campaigns in which the "barbarian" was a streetfighter and a thug without an aspect of either wilderness or true barbarism to his name.

 

[rounser]

But in a purely descriptive term, it's accurate: it's a class that leads in battle.

Not sure I agree, because the warlord isn't the lord of the other PCs. That's another problem with the term - it even implies a hierarchy which doesn't exist in a D&D adventuring party. Everyone knows that a warlord makes war, with an army, and is usually lord of some land, to boot. None of this applies.

There's also a problem with the "war" part. You need an army for a war, not 4-8 random miscreants. It's reminiscent of Cohen the Barbarian's "Silver Horde", of about 3, which was parody. "Warlord" as a D&D class suggests that in D&D worlds, it's not really parody any more.

 

[Dire Bare]

You all realize, don't you, that if we have the Warforged race in 4e, and the Warlord class . . . . somebody's gonna write up a Warforged Warlord, or a Warlord Warforged, or a Warforgedlord, or Warlordforged . . . .

It's just clunky and will never work.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Not sure I agree, because the warlord isn't the lord of the other PCs. That's another problem with the term - it even implies a hierarchy which doesn't exist in a D&D adventuring party. Everyone knows that a warlord makes war, with an army, and is usually lord of some land, to boot. None of this applies.

There's also a problem with the "war" part. You need an army for a war, not 4-8 random miscreants. It's reminiscent of Cohen the Barbarian's "Silver Horde", of about 3, which was parody. "Warlord" as a D&D class suggests that in D&D worlds, it's not really parody any more.

I see where you're coming from--and obviously, to an extent, I agree, since we were just talking about me not caring for the name --but I don't see it as that big of a disconnect. If they go with the name "warlord," as it appears they're going to, my reaction will be "Eh, I don't care for that." I'll probably go so far as to change the name in my own campaigns.

But enough to cause a major problem when playing, or anything more than a minor hiccup the first time or two I play 4E? Nope; it's just not that big of a deal to me.

 

[Mephistopheles]

If Warlords make the cut and Warforged make the cut then I will have no choice but to play Waldo the Warforged Warlord.

 

[rounser]

If Warlords make the cut and Warforged make the cut then I will have no choice but to play Waldo the Warforged Warlord.

And his unwuly wegiment: Weginald the Wizard, Woderwick the Warlock, and Woger the Warrior, of course. They don't just adventure, they decware war!

 

[Atlatl Jones]

I also don't like the name 'warlord.' The concept I love, but that name is too narrow, and precludes a lot of character concepts, like dashing non-magical bards or straightforward characters without pretensions of creating their own armies and taking over territory. I like "marshal", but the designers may be concerned that it'll get confused with the martial power source. I personally think it's fine. Even something general like "commander" or "leader" would be much better.

 

[Rechan]

What works well as an NPC cameo (or even, entire race of NPCs) doesn't necessarily work on the PC side of the fence.

But those "cameos" present flavor to your game. These creatures don't "Belong" in a Europe-based Fantasy setting. King Arthur never ran afoul with a genie. It's genre-defying, so they have to be able to fit in the same world.

That requires a little bit of flavor. And the monk is not immune to being flavored differently.

I don't know. Maybe I'm broken, but in my games, the monk class flavor isn't limited to being associated with monestaries or martial arts. Some are used by governments as operatives (mobile, stealth and physical skills), Body Guards (Sense Motive, Listen and Spot as class skills, can look defenseless, no need for weapon), Performers (see: Physical skils), assassins (always armed, stealth and physical skills, mobility to flee scene), and Mage-slayers (their powers and defenses fit the mold).

If a rogue as a class can fit anyone from Indiana Jones to James Bond, then a monk class can fit anyone from Sam Fisher (Splinter Cell) to Batman. These are contemporary examples, but each one can function in a fantasy game as a character concept. And while you may say "I just don't see a guy punching a dragon", I don't see James Bond trying to sneak attack one, either.

 

[rounser]

But those "cameos" present flavor to your game.

I know, I'm all for them. Think maybe you should re-read what I wrote, because your response doesn't seem to map to what I meant to convey.