D&D 5E D&D podcast!

[Stalker0]

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?

I feel like you get right to the heart of the argument.

The "tactical fighter" is a common archetype. Having it in the game just makes sense. Now whether that comes about because of fighter options or a new class is the mechanical question. I personally would rather have it rolled in to the fighter because I think it gives more flexible options (I can dip into the tactical without going full in having to take another class). I was a big fan of the Warblade 3.5 class for this reason, I felt like I slide stats into more int and gain different fighter benefits. But either way works.

Now we get to the "thorny" issue. Should healing occur without magic? Looking on these boards alone, I think the core answer is....no. Healing seems to be an incredibly divisive issue in the community, and no matter how we flavor or dress it up, allowing non-magical healing to be on par with magic is just not going to fly.


But I don't think its the end of the story. I think there is a place for the non-magical means of "resisting death", which ultimately is what HPs are all about. A warlord could provide "temporary hp", a "second wind" mechanic, "damage reduction", "increased death's door mechanic", "increased HD regeneration", etc. As long as the effect is different from magic, and most likely will need to be weaker, than I think the community could accept it.

 

[GX.Sigma]

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....(e.g. the whole give someone else an attack instead of taking one yourself type of thing)

That's a mechanical archetype, though. What does that actually represent in the imagined world? What's the character? An unarmed guy who stands awkwardly near the battle and yells out "hey, you should hit that guy with your sword" every six seconds?

Should healing occur without magic?...I think the core answer is....no. Healing seems to be an incredibly divisive issue in the community...

Sounds perfect for one of those optional rules modules I hear so much about.

 

[Warbringer]

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

In terms of concepting, yes, in terms of tenure, no; unfortunately too much weight is being give to pre-4e classes.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

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.

I'd love it if they folded everything into 4 classes: Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, Cleric. I also think strong, distinct archetypes are important, but I don't think you need those archetypes to equal classes. 1E Shadowrun is a good example: Character creation is basically point-based, but the sample archetypes in that book molded how we saw the game and were the basis for creating a character that didn't feel like a random mish-mosh of abilities.

 

[TwoSix]

I'd love it if they folded everything into 4 classes: Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, Cleric. I also think strong, distinct archetypes are important, but I don't think you need those archetypes to equal classes. 1E Shadowrun is a good example: Character creation is basically point-based, but the sample archetypes in that book molded how we saw the game and were the basis for creating a character that didn't feel like a random mish-mosh of abilities.

I'd argue for 3. Warrior (master of the mundane), Rogue/Wizard (clever guy archetype) and Priest (innate magic-possessor).

 

[Blackwarder]

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.

You mean something like a bard? Because a warlord build that don't fight don't really fit the image of a warlord...

Warder

 

[DEFCON 1]

I'd love it if they folded everything into 4 classes: Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, Cleric.

Which is exactly why they're releasing the Basic game. So you can get what you want.

But if you really think the game would have succeeded if that was only what they gave us, I think you're fooling yourself. I believe the percentage of players who want just Core Four is strikingly smaller than those who want at least your average array of classes that have come from the four previous editions.

 

[DEFCON 1]

You mean something like a bard? Because a warlord build that don't fight don't really fit the image of a warlord...

Which was Mike's opinion as well... although I got the sense that Rodney wasn't completely buying that argument. The obvious reason for that is because Bards typically use magic, whereas the Warlord is purely martial. So really, Bard =/= Inspiring Warrior. Now granted... you probably could refluff the Bard and some of his mechanics to become an Inspiring Warrior type of character... but it would entail a bit of work.

 

[DEFCON 1]

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.

Of course not. They'll purchase 5E material because no more 4E material is being published and yet 5E material can be used in their 4E game with little difficulty.

It's the same reason why 3.5 players will subscribe to Pathfinder Adventure Paths. They get new and hopefully useful material that... while it isn't exactly formatted for the game they are playing... is close enough that it can be run without many (if any) problems. Because most of those 4E players are not the "wounded birds" who will boycott anything that isn't 4E.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Which is exactly why they're releasing the Basic game. So you can get what you want.

But if you really think the game would have succeeded if that was only what they gave us, I think you're fooling yourself. I believe the percentage of players who want just Core Four is strikingly smaller than those who want at least your average array of classes that have come from the four previous editions.

That's not what I want or think. You've hit upon another peeve of mine: That the four classes I listed are somehow limited in scope.

I didn't spell out my thoughts on the matter, so I can understand why you'd think I might be calling for simplicity. I want a Fighter that can be a Barbarian, Cavalier, Warlord, etc. depending on the archetype you choose and/or the options you choose individually. And I want similar for other classes.

This would also bring about a satisfying approach to multiclassing that I haven't had with multiclassing since 3E. There were no Fighter/Barbarians in AD&D because the multiclass was precluded by the fact that Barbarian was a sub-class of Fighter. I'd like to see that direction taken with Next, but updated with modern game design. Create the space under the main class umbrellas, don't make new classes for each concept. That's one of the reasons IMO that class glut seemed so bad in previous editions.