D&D 5E D&D podcast!

[Blackwarder]

http://wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4pod/20130306

In this episode, Mike Mearls returns to host the podcast! First, Mikes sits down with Chris Dupuis and Rodney Thompson to talk Dungeon Command: Blood of Gruumsh, Unearthed Arcana, and the Original "White Box" Edition of the game. From there, Mike and Rodney move on to discuss the current status of D&D Next, including possible roles and implementation for party leaders.

I haven't listen to it yet, I'll listen to it in the car, so I don't have any comments at the moment.

Warder

 

[GX.Sigma]

• Blood of Gruumsh has all-new sculpts, based on concept art for D&D Next. Rodney likes the ogre's proportions. I do too, but I wonder why all the orcs are blue.
• Unearthed Arcana has a more functional binding and includes the errata.
• They talk about the White Box reprint, and Mearls uses his "bully pulpit" to talk about how important it is to have simple rules for a low barrier of entry. Rodney counters by saying that new players are usually introduced by friends, and Mearls rebuts by asking how many people aren't playing because they didn't have friends who already played (and nothing protecting them from the scary 300-page rulebook). This leads to an interesting discussion about rules vs. story.
• The discussion on the Warlord happens here, with lots of quibbling about William Wallace. When they tried to create the Warlord as a class, it felt like it wanted to do a lot of things the Fighter was already doing. Bottom line: The "tactically cunning combatant" archetype falls under the Fighter, but the "inspiring leader" feels more like a Bardy thing. They mention that a tactically cunning Fighter could take a specialty for "Healer" or "Inspiring Guy" to create the 4e Warlord.

 

[Jester David]

• The discussion on the Warlord happens here, with lots of quibbling about William Wallace. When they tried to create the Warlord as a class, it felt like it wanted to do a lot of things the Fighter was already doing. Bottom line: The "tactically cunning combatant" archetype falls under the Fighter, but the "inspiring leader" feels more like a Bardy thing. They mention that a tactically cunning Fighter could take a specialty for "Healer" or "Inspiring Guy" to create the 4e Warlord.

This is going to piss a lot of people off...

 

[DEFCON 1]

This is going to piss a lot of people off...

True... but I do wonder how many people are going to be pissed off because of mechanical concerns, as opposed to fluff concerns?

Is the need for a Warlord in the game there not because of character concepts that the Warlord can cover... but purely because of a need for more classes that can "heal", and more importantly, classes that can "heal" without using magic?

That seems to always be the main argument for having the Warlord-- a class in the game that can replenish hit points without the use of magic. And that's really a game mechanics concern, and not a conceptual story concern. Yes... using tactics and/or inspiration is a clever way of explaining and describing why there is a non-magical healing mechanic... but in both those cases, the mechanic came first. In no way did WotC (when designing 4E) say "We need to make an inspirational, William Wallace type of warrior class. But if we do so, what kind of mechanics should we give it?" Instead, the thinking was "We need to make a warrior class that can let players spend their healing surges. What kind of flavor can we give to represent that?"

I think we can all agree (and Mike and Rodney seemed to also) that creating a "tactical system" within the Fighter's Maneuvers is easy-peasy. Creating a "Fighter Tactician" won't be any real issue as they design it, and thus that one half of the 4E Warlord can be covered without any problem. It won't have the class name "Warlord"... but the character would pretty much be just that. And I would suspect that that's probably not going to be a real issue for most people. Because the "tactics" and "buffing" aspects of the Warlord are not what cause the most consternation.

Thus, we come back to the real issue... which is healing. And the question which is "How much ingrained healing ability (flavored as inspiration) does a class have to have to warrant having its own class?" That's the issue. Because Mike was right... you could easily take the Fighter with one of the "tactical" maneuver builds and then select the Healer specialty, to get most of the abilities of the Warlord. But is the Healer specialty enough for many 4E players? I'm willing to bet that... No... they are going to want a fuller suite of "healing-like" abilities above and beyond a simple Specialty. Which I can certainly understand... because it mimics the argument of whether you need a Paladin class when you can make a Fighter/Cleric, or whether you need a Ranger class when you can make a Fighter or Rogue with an outdoorsy Background?

Is the flavor concept of the Warlord strong enough and different enough (from the fighter especially) to need to have its own class so that a player can layer his Warlord with various Backgrounds and Specialities... as opposed to the Warlord being more of a Background and Specialty itself that gets layered on top of a Fighter? Just like the question of the Assassin as well, I should wonder.

Paladin and Ranger are worth full classes, but Warlord and Assassin are not? That will be a make-or-break issue for those players who are fans of those respective classes.

 

[Bedrockgames]

That is an interesting discussion.

 

[Salamandyr]

Unfortunately I can't listen to the podcast at work, so I appreciate hearing about what is covered. As to the warlord, I'm on record as desiring fewer, broader classes, than many, niche oriented classes. Given my druthers, the paladin and ranger would go away as well, or keep their names as "specialties" or preset "builds" under a generalized fighter, rogue, or cleric class.

 

[the Jester]

I think the warlord is a distinct enough archetype that it deserves its own class. I don't think it should be as good at fighting as a fighter, and I don't think it even necessarily needs to have proper healing- I favor granting temporary hit points or an ability to grant quick recovery or something instead- but I think it does the warlord a disservice to cram it into the fighter. I'd also like to see an individual assassin class, though I am far more willing to grant that the assassin can fit within the rogue if approached properly.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

Unfortunately I can't listen to the podcast at work, so I appreciate hearing about what is covered. As to the warlord, I'm on record as desiring fewer, broader classes, than many, niche oriented classes. Given my druthers, the paladin and ranger would go away as well, or keep their names as "specialties" or preset "builds" under a generalized fighter, rogue, or cleric class.

Warlord could go away since there's only one and a half editions that had it as the base class, Paladin and Ranger will never go away because they've existed in 1e to 4e and there'd be a huge outcry if they weren't classes, and they've clearly had 4 editions to become stronger concepts.

But on the subject of Warlord, I felt it never was about the healing and more about team tactics for a combatant. Currently the fighter lacks much in the way of special team tactics, but I could see them getting some. A thing I had about Warlords was that if fighter powers were a lot more versatile in 4e, and they weren't aiming for roles in a class powers, Warlord powers could fit right into Fighter powers, unlike some of 4e's more niche classes (like the Warden) which had powers that certainly were more unique in flavour and distinct from the Warlords. But the thing is they could have gone either way with the Warlord being a class or not, though I feel it could justify a sub-class or class variant, but that's something I wouldn't think they'd even try in the core books.

 

[darjr]

I am starting to really like the idea of a warlord and temporary hitpoints. Or maybe some sort of combat medic training so that mundane healing could be applied quickly during combat. Not clerical healing levels, except as an option.

 

[Iosue]

My impression is that for some 4e players, it's not necessarily about the mechanics or even the fluff. You could conceivably make a tactical fighter with healing skills -- a 5e version of the Warlord. But that's not the issue. The issue is that some 4e fans want to see a clear and as much as possible undiluted representation of 4e in the game, and as one of the core classes unique to 4e, the Warlord is an exemplary example.

I think it's clear that that is not an opinion Mearls is particularly concerning himself with. I think his goal is edition emulation, not representation. If you can make a tactical fighter with healing ability, I suspect Mearls would consider that mission accomplished. I don't disagree with that approach, but it is going to piss some hardliners off. The question is, how much of the market those folks make up.