D&D 5E D&D podcast!

[Ratskinner]

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

See, I see having a zillion classes as going again that strong distinct archetypes.

I mean, every character concept out there isn't an archetype.

 

[Ratskinner]

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

I'll go you one better. I wonder if Cleric even needs to be a separate class.

 

[TwoSix]

I'll go you one better. I wonder if Cleric even needs to be a separate class.

That could never work.

http://www.stargazergames.eu/games/warrior-rogue-mage/

http://greenronin.com/dragon_age/

http://true20.com/

 

[Jester David]

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.

But the same could also be said for the fighter would could be built as someone who uses a bow or a rapier and Dexterity.

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.

So... really, it's a cleric then. Just pick the War domain and flavour as a tactician?

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.

Which is entirely a mechanical distinction. There's no different story there.
If I made a character that wore light armour, used daggers, and gained a bonus when attacking the unaware it would overlap with the rogue even if I gave it a unique mechanical hook.

 

[Ratskinner]

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.

I'm not sure how you determine you "average array of classes" and all that. Especially since the balance of mechanical weight between class, feat, and background is shifting. (Heck we've even got subclasses for the Core 4: Fighting Style, Rogue's Scheme, Wizard's Tradition, and Cleric's Deity.) Feats, in particular, are carrying more weight than in 3e or 4e. Nonetheless, for the Standard game I certainly think we'll see more than the core 4.

The tricky questions only come in where we have these marginal character concepts which are closely associated with one of the Core 4. Assassin for instance, seems to have fewer supporters than Warlord as an independent class. Personally, I think it should be left as a mechanical decision. That is, if a solid <X> can be created as a combination another (sub)class, background, and specialty without making any of those too unwieldy...I tend to think that's pretty good.

 

[Libramarian]

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?"

Good post. I really don't find the Warlord compelling on a fluff level. It doesn't make sense to me to have someone shouting orders/encouragement in the middle of a melee, but what I really dislike is the idea that other PCs need someone else to motivate them.

 

[Sage Genesis]

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.

I never said it was a binary issue. I said "very few" of those people will do that. Evidently, you disagree. Ain't no problem.

 

[Sage Genesis]

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.

3e material and PF material is nearly identical. That was more or less the point of PF, after all. I have yet to see any evidence that 5e and 4e will be similarly similar. 5e adventures will be made with different assumptions about monster type/numbers, different way to hand out treasure, different power structure (Vancian vs AEDU), and so on. You might as well buy old AD&D adventures or Warhammer adventures instead. They'll be just as easy to convert as the 5e ones.

 

[Droogie128]

Good post. I really don't find the Warlord compelling on a fluff level. It doesn't make sense to me to have someone shouting orders/encouragement in the middle of a melee, but what I really dislike is the idea that other PCs need someone else to motivate them.

You've never been in the military, have you?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

[Gargoyle]

You've never been in the military, have you?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

I have, but I still see Libramarian's point. In many (I daresay most) campaigns, PC's are exceptional heroes who show initiative in battle, not privates in some army. If I'm roleplaying a heroic fighter, do I really want to be directed all the time by my peer?

I see the other side of the coin too. The warlord is very good at what he does, and it can be heroic to follow orders. My greatest heroes IRL do it all the time.

It is a very subjective issue when considering the fluff of the warlord, and whether it fits your game or not.