-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D 5E D&D podcast!
- Thread starter Blackwarder
- Start date
That's a very good point. And I think you're right... emulation > representation does seem to be Mike's primary focus with the game. And in fact, actually might help them financially in the long run when you couple it with the idea from his last L&L column, which was "less mechanics books" and more story emphasis.
If WotC's primary stream of books following the first set of rulebooks is mainly story and adventure focused... AND the final D&DN rules are set up to emulate editions rather than recreate editions... then a player who decides to stick with the 4E ruleset (because it plays like he wants it to) might still actually see and get use out of D&DN books and adventures by adapting them to his 4E game. After all... if D&DN is able to emulate 4E to a certain extent... then those books and adventures will hopefully be written in such a way that a 4E-emulated game using Next *OR* an actual 4E game can use the information with little difficulty.
Thus increased sales of D&DN products to players who aren't actually playing D&DN (the same way that all these D&D PDFs are being sold to many players who probably are not actually playing them in their original edition, but are adapting them to their current edition or the Next playtest.)
Sage Genesis
First Post
I doubt it. Very few 4e holdouts are going to purchase a 5e adventure just because 5e happens to include a type of Fighter that kind of looks like a Warlord. This is exacerbated by the fact that a lot of those 4e holdouts feel disappointed or offended by the way WotC is treating their favorite 4e-elements. (See also: Pathfinder and the 3e/4e switch.)
Iosue
Legend
That's very much my take, and why I think they are doing the reprints and rereleasing the PDFs.
Honestly, I could live with all of Paladin, Ranger, Assassin and Warlord as either classes or specialties, but I guess the first two will be made as classes are "hybrid", in the sense that they mix martial and magic abilities (at least in some of the builds), so they are more complex, while the last two will all be in the martial scope.
Iosue
Legend
It's not a binary issue, though. There's plenty of variety in 4e fans. There will be some that enjoy 4e's feel and gameplay without being wedded to the mechanics. Folks like me, who like having the DM tools, wizards with at-will spells, fighters with options, non-magical healing, the PoL setting, and granular combat with clear rules for using maps and minis. The 5e hurdle is much lower for these folks. Then are those who have absolutely no interest in playing with 5e's ruleset, who want to keep playing using the 4e rules. But they want support. They like using published adventures. If WotC can release decent adventures easily converted to 4e rules, then this group is a possible market. Then there are those who want absolutely nothing to do with 5e, and in fact, really want nothing to do anymore with WotC. Maybe they'll only hold on to a DDI subscription as long as the 4e tools are available. Maybe they won't even want to do that. This group is essentially lost to WotC. The best they can hopeful are occasional 4e PDF purchases. Maybe an edition-neutral PoL book, if they're really into the setting.
It's pure speculation, but I suspect the first two groups combined will be larger than the third.
Obryn
Hero
I'm certainly even less interested in Next than I was 10 minutes ago.
Warlord is as much its own thing as ranger, Paladin, and Barbarian.
-O
GX.Sigma
Adventurer
In other words, basically a fighter?
Edit: Let's think about the martial classes in the terms laid out in this L&L column: They each have the same basic progression, but each gets something unique. The Barbarian gets rage abilities, the Monk gets ki abilities, the Fighter gets combat maneuvers... what does the Warlord get? Non-magical, at-will abilities that represent discrete actions taken during a battle? How is that different from combat maneuvers?
Last edited:
Obryn
Hero
depends how reductionist you want to go. in a system where rangers and Paladins are classes of their own, excluding the warlord is silly.
Fold ranger, Paladin, warlord, and Barbarian into fighters too, and it makes somewhat more sense. Put thieves there, too - go full-out white box. Nevertheless it kind of goes against what I see as the main perk of a class-based system: Strong, distinct archetypes.
-O
the Jester
Legend
The assertion that a warlord is a front-line leader isn't always true. There is a strong set of "lazy warlord" builds- warlords who hang back and help their allies do all the work without throwing a punch or swinging a sword themselves. I think this is the archetype that the designers should aim for, with his own prowess in combat a secondary function for the warlord. The warlord should be a lesser personal combatant than the fighter. His attack bonus and HD should be lower- attack bonus like a cleric (which should be lower than a fighter's 
) and HD about a d8 (assuming d10 for fighters). Nor does he need to be proficient in all armor and weapons that a fighter is.
The warlord primarily aids his allies. The idea that he should use maneuvers is a valid approach, but not the only one. I favor auras and 'enabling' actions (e.g. the whole give someone else an attack instead of taking one yourself type of thing). This also helps to differentiate the fighter and warlord.
) and HD about a d8 (assuming d10 for fighters). Nor does he need to be proficient in all armor and weapons that a fighter is. The warlord primarily aids his allies. The idea that he should use maneuvers is a valid approach, but not the only one. I favor auras and 'enabling' actions (e.g. the whole give someone else an attack instead of taking one yourself type of thing). This also helps to differentiate the fighter and warlord.
Similar Threads
D&D (2024)
D&D Update: 2024 Rulebooks & Survey Results
