Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Mike Mearls Happy Fun Hour: The Warlord
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7364696" data-attributes="member: 996"><p>Way off base. </p><p></p><p>Even mechanically, they were quite distinct:</p><p></p><p>A bravura build was high-STR, with enhanced defense and strong offense in its own right. Exploits it's particularly good at invited attacks, protected allies, and even marked - and if they keyed off a secondary stat, typically used CHA. </p><p></p><p>A lazy build would put lower-priority on - even intentionally dump - STR and offense in general - the powers it was best at tended to key off INT, and obviously, to grant attacks and other actions or provide comparatively passive benefits. </p><p></p><p> That's a gross oversimplification often used in the edition war to criticize 4e class designs, in general. Yeah, 4e simplified things down to attack rolls to resolve all attacks, instead of using saving throws and one-off mechanics. That didn't render any two given 'builds' (really alternate feature choices: the 4e equivalent of a 5e sub-class) the same any more than it rendered all classes the same. </p><p></p><p>It'd be like saying there's no difference between the 5e Cleric and the 5e Warlock because they both cast spells. By that standard, most 5e classes have no standing to exist.</p><p></p><p>Aside: One mildly annoying thing WotC sometimes does is to take terms widely used in the community - like 'exploit' and 'build' and even 'Core' and give them an official meaning somewhat at odds with that usage. 4e called a choice of a defining class feature that could ripple through the class's capabilities and powers from 1st through 30th, a 'build.' Essentials called an alternate version of a class with often radically different mechanics and role, a sub-class. 5e calls a set of alternate class features a sub-class (or in the case of martial classes, an archetype). Archetype actually means something in natural language, too, but 5e departed from it's jargon-avoidance long enough to co-opt it. :shrug:</p><p></p><p>Anyway, upshot is that the 6 official Warlord 'builds' (and the Archer warlord) were more like 5e sub-classes than char-op builds...</p><p></p><p> "Lazylord" was a build in the CharOp sense. You could use it as an archetypal imperious commander barking out orders, or a stereotypical plucky side-kick shouting encouragement, or a 'victim' (because damsel in distress would be sexist) inviting rescue. Where it really shone, IMHO, was in the latter sorts of concepts, they're something you've never been able to do in D&D without simply being useless. </p><p></p><p>In the first case, the imperious commander shouting orders, sure, tactical builds could do it, too. (Technically, because the Lazylord was a charop build, it used some official-build's toys, too, typically the Tactical warlord, though Resourceful could work, too - it just wasn't a big part of the build - in fact, had it been an official build, it probably would have granted allies extra actions when they spent action points, with it's own 'lazy presence'). </p><p></p><p>Anyway, if the warlord design is as flexible as it probably should be to be a functional support character, any given warlord probably could use a gambit emblematic of any given other warlord archetype - including gambits that whatever less flippant label we put on Lazy (I like "Icon") is best at using.</p><p></p><p>The idea that one sub-class being able to use another's tricks somehow invalidates both is absurd on the face of it in the context of 5e. Look at the Wizard Traditions, any wizard of any Tradition can cast spells from any other's bailiwick, just like that. By the standard you've constructed for the Warlord, the Wizard has literally no valid sub-classes, and is not fit for inclusion as a full class.</p><p></p><p>Same's true of most sub-classes really.</p><p></p><p>Honestly, the same is true of every objection to including the Warlord as a class - were they applied even-handedly, they'd eliminate half the extant classes.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7364696, member: 996"] Way off base. Even mechanically, they were quite distinct: A bravura build was high-STR, with enhanced defense and strong offense in its own right. Exploits it's particularly good at invited attacks, protected allies, and even marked - and if they keyed off a secondary stat, typically used CHA. A lazy build would put lower-priority on - even intentionally dump - STR and offense in general - the powers it was best at tended to key off INT, and obviously, to grant attacks and other actions or provide comparatively passive benefits. That's a gross oversimplification often used in the edition war to criticize 4e class designs, in general. Yeah, 4e simplified things down to attack rolls to resolve all attacks, instead of using saving throws and one-off mechanics. That didn't render any two given 'builds' (really alternate feature choices: the 4e equivalent of a 5e sub-class) the same any more than it rendered all classes the same. It'd be like saying there's no difference between the 5e Cleric and the 5e Warlock because they both cast spells. By that standard, most 5e classes have no standing to exist. Aside: One mildly annoying thing WotC sometimes does is to take terms widely used in the community - like 'exploit' and 'build' and even 'Core' and give them an official meaning somewhat at odds with that usage. 4e called a choice of a defining class feature that could ripple through the class's capabilities and powers from 1st through 30th, a 'build.' Essentials called an alternate version of a class with often radically different mechanics and role, a sub-class. 5e calls a set of alternate class features a sub-class (or in the case of martial classes, an archetype). Archetype actually means something in natural language, too, but 5e departed from it's jargon-avoidance long enough to co-opt it. :shrug: Anyway, upshot is that the 6 official Warlord 'builds' (and the Archer warlord) were more like 5e sub-classes than char-op builds... "Lazylord" was a build in the CharOp sense. You could use it as an archetypal imperious commander barking out orders, or a stereotypical plucky side-kick shouting encouragement, or a 'victim' (because damsel in distress would be sexist) inviting rescue. Where it really shone, IMHO, was in the latter sorts of concepts, they're something you've never been able to do in D&D without simply being useless. In the first case, the imperious commander shouting orders, sure, tactical builds could do it, too. (Technically, because the Lazylord was a charop build, it used some official-build's toys, too, typically the Tactical warlord, though Resourceful could work, too - it just wasn't a big part of the build - in fact, had it been an official build, it probably would have granted allies extra actions when they spent action points, with it's own 'lazy presence'). Anyway, if the warlord design is as flexible as it probably should be to be a functional support character, any given warlord probably could use a gambit emblematic of any given other warlord archetype - including gambits that whatever less flippant label we put on Lazy (I like "Icon") is best at using. The idea that one sub-class being able to use another's tricks somehow invalidates both is absurd on the face of it in the context of 5e. Look at the Wizard Traditions, any wizard of any Tradition can cast spells from any other's bailiwick, just like that. By the standard you've constructed for the Warlord, the Wizard has literally no valid sub-classes, and is not fit for inclusion as a full class. Same's true of most sub-classes really. Honestly, the same is true of every objection to including the Warlord as a class - were they applied even-handedly, they'd eliminate half the extant classes. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Mike Mearls Happy Fun Hour: The Warlord
Top