What doesn't belong in the "core"

[harlokin]

I disagree that fun and valid choices such as Warforged should be excluded from the generic core rulebook just because some people don't think they fit into dull and unimaginative settings like GH and FR.

 

[amerigoV]

I disagree that fun and valid choices such as Warforged should be excluded from the generic core rulebook just because some people don't think they fit into dull and unimaginative settings like GH and FR.

I hate to say I agree with you in concept, but I do. I just do not like the way you said it.

Especially for Greyhawk, the Warlord would fit in fantastically (since there was, ya know, a War recently). That would be a great class to focus options on raising armies, strongholds, and realm building. Plus, it allows for a lower magic feel if the group wants it (you can have a group of fighters and rogues lead by a Warlord and actually have a chance to survive).

As an Eberron fan, I do wish the warforge were officially confined to that setting since a relevant portion of the world's history is built around them. But that is just a personal preference.

 

[kimble]

Warlords lack a 'solid fantasy archetype'? Really? I can think of a lot of famous characters that look like warlords (medium capable warrior, strategy focused, man-at-arms).

 

[FireLance]

Warlords lack a 'solid fantasy archetype'? Really? I can think of a lot of famous characters that look like warlords (medium capable warrior, strategy focused, man-at-arms).

Yes, but they weren't actually called warlords. Calling a character a specific class name is how we know that Aragorn is a Ranger, Gandalf is a Wizard and Bilbo Baggins is a Burglar (Thief).

 

[kimble]

Yes, but they weren't actually called warlords. Calling a character a specific class name is how we know that Aragorn is a Ranger, Gandalf is a Wizard and Bilbo Baggins is a Burglar (Thief).

Actually... we could just call then Warden (or maybe Captain), then? It would satisfy 'My character knows his class and use it as a name' crowd.

 

[Sanglorian]

Yes, but they weren't actually called warlords. Calling a character a specific class name is how we know that Aragorn is a Ranger, Gandalf is a Wizard and Bilbo Baggins is a Burglar (Thief).

And Charlemagne's Paladins were Fighters, the thieving Robin Hood was a Ranger, Gandalf the Wizard could more easily be built as a Cleric (one of my friends built him as a Swordsage!), Friar Tuck is a monk but not a Monk ... and a lot of the barbarians who invaded Rome were Aristocrats, Experts, Fighters and - yes - even Warlords!

What's in a name? A warlord by any other name would still inspire the meek.

EDIT: Having said that, I think Knight and Warden are great suggestions for new names. I just don't think we should get hung up on it either way.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Wacky weapons and equipment such as double-ended swords, spiked chains, glowsticks and gluebags.
Classes which lack a solid fantasy archetype (e.g. mystic theurge, warlord).
Races which aren't classic fantasy enough to belong in every D&D world (e.g. warforged, dragonborn).
Heavy orientation towards use of miniatures to resolve combat.
Statements about the implied setting which don't apply in many worlds (e.g. such and such race is from an empire, the god of jails is evil for some reason without specifying what setting is being referred to etc).

Wait, this is a straw man argument. When was stuff this stupid in the core rules?

Oh, right, there it is, double-bladed sword.

 

[Bohemian Ear Spoon]

No Sunrods!

 

[Wormwood]

ITT: stuff I don't like shouldn't be in the core rules.

 

[Wormwood]

I disagree that fun and valid choices such as Warforged should be excluded from the generic core rulebook...

Thank you!

Been playing D&D since the Cambrian Age and I've seen more warforged (3) or tieflings (2) at my table than I've seen gnomes (1) and halflings (1).

I'm all for unity, but let's not assume the world stopped in 1977.