D&D 5E WotC Developer Google Hangout on Youtube

[I'm A Banana]

Yes, warlords could theoretically be folded into a sufficiently broad fighter class. But the same could be said about rangers (archer wilderness rogues), bards (singing wizard/rogues), monks (unarmed fighters), paladins (war clerics), sorcerers, warlocks, psions (variant wizards), druids (nature clerics), and barbarians (slayer fighters), leaving us with... four classes total! Which is fine in some ways, but I don't think it's what they're going for.

It's not a slippery slope kind of situation. There's a difference enough in game history, expectations, and fiction to make it apples and oranges. The "Ranger" concept, for instance, is distinct from the "Fighter" concept from 2e on up, and maintains a fairly strong distinction in archetype and main thrust. Rangers aren't just a specific type of fighter, their schtick is going to be different: they're more about exploration and the wilderness than a fighter is. Combat isn't their main thing.

The "warlord" concept was part of the "fighter" concept until 4e (which had a uniquely narrow "fighter" concept), in the same way the "Assassin" concept was part of the "thief" concept except in OD&D and 1e (where the thief was a pretty narrow concept).

There's a question about warlords and assassins in a way that there isn't really for other classes, because it's pretty clear that a paladin and a fighter are distinct archetypes, but it is much less clear that a warlord and a fighter are distinct archetypes.

Everyone in the Iliad is a "fighter" in the sense that they use melee or ranged weapons... but so can every class in D&D. Even the wizard starts with a +2 to hit, better than 90% of the people and creatures out there. Kicking ass is the default for heroes; if we're going to distinguish them with a class system, we need to delve a bit deeper into what distinguishes them from each other.

Everyone in the Iliad is a fighter because they are all defined in a huge way by fighting. That's the fighter's schtick -- combat. They are very good at it. If you are waging a war, you want the heroes in your army to be fighters, since they're going to do a lot of fighting.

If "rogue, but focused more on killing" isn't a distinct enough character archetype, what with the distinct assassin archetype in fiction and history and the game, "fighter, but focused more on leading" doesn't seem like it has a lot of ground to stand on, especially as people played that archetype just fine before the 4e warlord came along.

 

[GreyICE]

The "warlord" concept was part of the "fighter" concept until 4e (which had a uniquely narrow "fighter" concept), in the same way the "Assassin" concept was part of the "thief" concept except in OD&D and 1e (where the thief was a pretty narrow concept).

Except that it's not part of the fighter concept at all since 1E.

Explain how the 3E fighter is a warlord in any way. Does he inspire the people next to him to do better? No, that's what a cleric does with spells like Prayer, Mass Shield of Faith, and Recitation. Does he lead allies into battle and enable them to rain down attacks upon their enemies? No, that's what Wizards do with Haste, and Druids do with Mass Snake's Swiftness. Does he inspire allies to remain in the fight and press onward? Nope, Cleric again.

There's literally no way the fighter is similar to a warlord. People keep saying that the Warlord was part of the Fighter class, but that's just plain false. There was no Warlord class prior to 4E, and that was a huge gaping oversight.

You cannot build a leader-fighter except maybe using the ridiculously broken feat Leadership (that any class can take). The best he can do is occasionally give AC bonuses to adjacent allies with his shield, with the right feat. Compare it to Recitation for a second, and then laugh hysterically.

All those characters you mentioned in the Illiad? I don't see any reason why they shouldn't all be covered with the "fighter" class focusing on different options. Clever fighters, inspiring fighters, brutal fighters, all of them, each one, a different sort of fighter. A whole CAMPAIGN made of a single, very flexible, class. .

If you really think that in a class based system the ideal is to have a class that is so flexible that it can cover every archtype from an archer to a front line brawler to a cunning master strategist to a dashing pirate to a heavily armored crusader, then I have to wonder if you understand the point of a class system. It's really not to create incredibly broad, sprawling archtypes that can do anything (that's what classless systems do).

There's a reason the Ranger/Rogue/Fighter/Warlord are mechanically distinct. There's a reason they want the Sorcerer/Wizard/Warlock to spread around the spell loving. There's good reasons to have Clerics and Druids have a more limited number of spells than a Wizard in Next.

Limitations create distinction. Big sprawling messes of classes create terrible things. Usually either a ridiculously overpowered class (see: 3E Druid) or a sprawling mess that can be good with insane levels of optimization, but without literally absurd levels of optimization falls apart rapidly (see: 3E Warlock, a class that required a PrC, specific gear/1 level dip in Binder, specific rule interpretation, or an insane charop ridiculousness to be viable, or Factotem, which seems designed with CharOp in mind).

 

[the Jester]

I don't like the "swap out lower level things" approach to high levels, but am fine with an "improve lower level abilities" approach.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Except that it's not part of the fighter concept at all since 1E.

Explain how the 3E fighter is a warlord in any way.

Leadership is a feat. Fighters get extra feats, making Leadership a more attractive option for them.

Furthermore, there were several fighter-specific feats that rewarded a "tactical" character with a high INT. A whole chain of 'em.

Admittedly, the support was not very robust (much like the 2e support for thieves being assassins), but it wasn't absent. 4e supported the character concept more robustly, but it isn't clear that this mechanical support necessarily mandates a class. Change half of the 4e warlord powers to Expertise dice options (which are a lot like 3e feats), slap it on something like the Veteran fighting style, expand the ability adjustment of fighters to also include Intelligence, Wisdom, and Cha (which is actually kind of awesome anyway) and what more do you need?

You cannot build a leader-fighter

"Leader" as a role is an artificial rules construct, and the design team has been pretty clear in this talk and elsewhere that artificial rules constructs are not enough to give a class an identity of its own. Fiction first.

What is the difference between a warlord and a fighter who is also a strategic genius or a powerful personality with great magnetism in the fiction?

I'm not sure there is any. And even if there might be, it's certainly a lot weaker than the division between a thief and an assassin in the fiction.

 

[Jester David]

What I found most interesting and must-listenable is the discussion on skills around 50-minutes in.

 

[GreyICE]

Leadership is a feat. Fighters get extra feats, making Leadership a more attractive option for them.

Furthermore, there were several fighter-specific feats that rewarded a "tactical" character with a high INT. A whole chain of 'em.

Admittedly, the support was not very robust (much like the 2e support for thieves being assassins), but it wasn't absent. 4e supported the character concept more robustly, but it isn't clear that this mechanical support necessarily mandates a class. Change half of the 4e warlord powers to Expertise dice options (which are a lot like 3e feats), slap it on something like the Veteran fighting style, expand the ability adjustment of fighters to also include Intelligence, Wisdom, and Cha (which is actually kind of awesome anyway) and what more do you need?

Leadership scales off Diplomacy. Not a core skill for Fighters. I suppose they could use another feat to gain access to Diplomacy, but I think you're aware of how disingenuous your excuse is (nevermind Leadership being the most banned feat in the game, beating out stellar additions like Greenbound Summoning and Divine Metamagic). All the Int skills rewarded the fighter PERSONALLY with extra maneuvers, etc. Didn't do much for the fighter's party members.

The fact that your suggestion for Next to make the Warlord part of the fighter expanded the ability adjustment of fighters to 6/6 stats, completely changed their core mechanic into something different, and added a brand new "fighting style" that is actually not a fighting style, and... yeah. I think you should be aware of how very convoluted this "suggestion" is.

"Leader" as a role is an artificial rules construct, and the design team has been pretty clear in this talk and elsewhere that artificial rules constructs are not enough to give a class an identity of its own. Fiction first.

What is the difference between a warlord and a fighter who is also a strategic genius or a powerful personality with great magnetism in the fiction?

I'm not sure there is any. And even if there might be, it's certainly a lot weaker than the division between a thief and an assassin in the fiction.

There's no mechanical way of creating a fighter who is a strategic genius or powerful personality and have that actually reflected in the stats of the fighter at the moment. I guess you can say that your fighter is a strategic genius or a charismatic leader, but that means literally nothing. I guess you could go with your suggestion to make the fighter a 6 stat boosting class, but what happens then? Well, you lose the ability to make a surly and rude dwarven fighter, or a happy-go-lucky swordsman who is easily tricked and just not that bright. Are those archtypes in fiction? I'd say that yes they are. And your suggestion has just destroyed them as possible archtypes in D&D.

I suppose you could create some sort of ridiculous hydra-class abomination where you can select the stats boosted in combination with the mechanics that you want your fighter-warlord to have, and create some sort of weird hydra-based class where half your class is based around being the best martial combatant ever, and half your class is based around being an inspiring leader who directs troops in battle.

I don't see the point.

Rogue - Could be a thief, a swashbuckler, a thief-catcher, or an assassin. In all cases relies on their skill, careful choice of engagements, and is lightly armored.

Fighter - Could be an archer, a swordsman, an armored knight, or a guy with a spear and a grudge. In all cases relies on incredible mastery of their chosen weapon.

Warlord - Could be a strategic planner, a battlefield leader, a Sargent who manages troops or a commissar who inspires with rhetoric and threats. In all cases a battlefield combatant who exists to drive those around him or her onwards.


The most important part, since classes are more distinct mechanically than thematically (The Sorcerer is barely distinct from the Wizard thematically at all, the distinction is entirely mechanical) is that there's no clean way to incorporate the Warlord as part of the fighter without either making the fighter a class that is split in a way that no other class is or removing everything that makes a Warlord a Warlord. How do you plan to stick healing on a fighter exactly? Yeah.

To make Assassin part of a rogue, you can let them pick up proficiency with Poisons and Garrotes. Rogues can already sneak, so stealthy executions are in. Rogues already have a lot of skills, so the disguise skills necessary to get close to important nobles is already part of the class (Rogues have other reasons for having disguise anyway). Poison knowledge is a small subsystem (in every edition of D&D) and does not particularly define the class' identity.

In short, Assassins can be a type of Rogue because the Rogue archtype is broad enough to include them easily (also the designers have said they want a mechanically separate Assassin at some point). Warlords cannot be a type of fighter because making them a type of fighter threatens to either create a druid-like abomination (6/6 stat boost, really?) or just the single most confusing class since the Artificer - and remember, Wizards wants the Fighter to be SIMPLE.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The fact that your suggestion for Next to make the Warlord part of the fighter expanded the ability adjustment of fighters to 6/6 stats, completely changed their core mechanic into something different, and added a brand new "fighting style" that is actually not a fighting style, and... yeah. I think you should be aware of how lame this "suggestion" is.

The Fighter archetype is very broad. The Warlord archetype is...possibly nonexistent.

I guess you could go with your suggestion to make the fighter a 6 stat boosting class, but what happens then? Well, you lose the ability to make a surly and rude dwarven fighter, or a happy-go-lucky swordsman who is easily tricked and just not that bright.

Are those archtypes in fiction? I'd say that yes they are. And your suggestion has just destroyed them as possible archtypes in D&D.

Any evidence to back that up? An option to add +1 to any ability score doesn't mean you don't have other low ability scores. The Fighter right now has a +1 to Str, Dex, OR Con. Expanding the possibilities of that so that you can make a more Cha, Int, or Wis-focused fighter instead isn't going to suddenly make low ability scores impossible for fighters.

I suppose you could create some sort of ridiculous hydra-class abomination where you can select the stats boosted in combination with the mechanics that you want your fighter-warlord to have, and create some sort of weird hydra-based class where half your class is based around being the best martial combatant ever, and half your class is based around being an inspiring leader who directs troops in battle.

Being an inspiring, tactical leader so that you can help in combat is pretty clearly within the scope of things that a specialist in combat (ie: a FIGHTER) can do.

I don't understand the insistence on this point of verbiage.

 

[GX.Sigma]

People keep saying that the Warlord was part of the Fighter class, but that's just plain false.

Castles and followers in old-school D&D?

There was no Warlord class prior to 4E

Marshal in 3.x?

 

[GreyICE]

Being an inspiring, tactical leader so that you can help in combat is pretty clearly within the scope of things that a specialist in combat (ie: a FIGHTER) can do.

I don't understand the insistence on this point of verbiage.

You're still not providing any logic that suggests how Wizards, who want to make the Fighter a reasonably easy class to pick up (something they've repeatedly stated) are supposed to add in the Warlord without creating a total abomination of a class that is anything BUT easy to pick up.

Your continued assertion that the Warlord archtype is "nonexistent" is highly disingenuous. You've been provided with several examples of exactly that archtype in the thread. Pretending that skill at leadership and skill at fighting are the same thing is like pretending that skill at casting Arcane Spells and skill at casting Divine Spells are the same thing, and arguing to unify the Wizard/Cleric as a result.

 

[B.T.]

I have no idea how you could interpret "getting a castle with an army" as not placing the fighter into a leadership role unless you were only familiar with the 3e version of the fighter, in which case you don't really have a place in talking about how fighters functioned in D&D up until 4e.

In fact, as far as I can tell, GreyICE is simply wrong on most of his points. Saying something like "[t]here was no Warlord class prior to 4E" indicates a gross misunderstanding of game mechanics. Was there a class called the warlord in prior editions of D&D? No, not specifically. The primary abilities of the warlord in 4e are: healing, buffing, and hitting things.

Now, those are the big three. Let's talk about classes that can do these in 3e.

• TOB's crusader class. This does everything that the warlord does. In fact, chances are that the entire White Raven school was a retrofitted warlord.

• Bard. With the right stats, a bard makes a decent combatant and he can buff his allies. Refluff singing as shouting war cries and you have the warlord. Since the bard is likely to have a decent Charisma and high social skills, he's a natural fit for a leader.

• Paladin. Lay on hands, smite evil, aura of courage, a handful of spells. While certainly more specific than the warlord, he fulfills a very similar role. While the paladin class was, overall, somewhat weak, he was bound to have decent Charisma and some social skills, making him yet another option for the "warlord" niche.

• Marshall. I hate this class, but it has party-wide buffs and is a decent melee fighter. Power level is weak, but it does what the warlord wants to do.

Yes, technically, there was no "warlord" class. But there were classes that can fulfill a similar role to the warlord in 4e. They don't mirror the mechanics perfectly, but they provide opportunities for characters to take a leadership role.