D&D 5E D&D podcast!

[Pour]

I can't entirely disagree with Mearl's approach to Warlord, but then we should apply the logic to Barbarian, Ranger, Paladin, Monk, Assassin, Sorcerer, and leave four base classes with multiple branches. However, we all know that won't be happening. I'm trying to follow the logic of that, and the only thing I can come up with is Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian, these are all legacy classes with a lot of history meant to evoke a certain feel or nostalgia. I'm annoyed by the idea that a Paladin is in no matter what because it's been in 4 editions of the game, but the Warlord is not because it was only in 4e. I mean how else can you apply his logic about the Warlord and not apply it to the other cousin classes?

And there are plenty of thematic and flavorful characters, whole archetypes, which lend themselves more toward a Warlord than a Fighter. Are we really going to force each other to list examples, then pick at them endlessly? I'm surprised that was even used as a reason for dissolving Warlord upthread. And if we did absorb all Warlord archetypes and character examples into the Fighter, then we also must lump Aragorn into the pile as a Fighter that builds on a mix of wilderness and 'lost heir' options, and St. George as a particularly devote Fighter with some divine smattering, and Conan as a Fighter with a mix of Strength-based feats and a dash of thieving.

It may not look like much mechanically to a person, but those defining themes strike me as incredibly important. And yes, there should be a leader/support class that is not reliant on magic or divinity whatsoever.

 

[Bluenose]

I can't entirely disagree with Mearl's approach to Warlord, but then we should apply the logic to Barbarian, Ranger, Paladin, Monk, Assassin, Sorcerer, and leave four base classes with multiple branches. However, we all know that won't be happening. I'm trying to follow the logic of that, and the only thing I can come up with is Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian, these are all legacy classes with a lot of history meant to evoke a certain feel or nostalgia.

Barbarian has been in the same number of PHB1s as Warlord. The same for Sorceror and Assassin. There have been four distinctly different versions of the Bard. The idea that these classes have some huge amount of history and 'archetype' in D&D isn't supported by more than a hope.

Oh, and if Mearls had told me that I couldn't shout a hand back on, I'd have asked him if he thought it was possible to rest it back.

 

[Garthanos]

I have, but I still see Libramarian's point.

My favorite flavor text for warlord activity is creating openings by interfering with enemies creating enticing bluffs that pull them in to compromising positions and so on... shrug the number of ways this can be presented is astounding even if you are insisting on lone wolf anti-team thinking

 

[Iosue]

Oh, and if Mearls had told me that I couldn't shout a hand back on, I'd have asked him if he thought it was possible to rest it back.

Yup. I've been pretty supportive of the job the designers are doing, but Mearls arguments in the podcast we're unpersuasive in the extreme.

But one thing I think bears mentioning is this wasn't the usual Mearls/Crawford unified front. It seemed like Mearls and Thompson really disagreed on some things here, and while they may be focusing on one kind of Warlord at the moment, I suspect that there's enough disagreement on the team that if the playtest response is not positive, we'll see a re-working a la the Sorcerer and Warlock classes. Mearls has mentioned debates and discussions in the office before, but this was the first time we've really seen it.

 

[Baumi]

The Warlord was one (if not THE) most beloved Class in 4E and now they want to get rid of it? They really don't want to win any 4E player over..

 

[Ratskinner]

I think they kind of are. Fighter with a big club who wears very little armor is quite a bit different from Knight in shining armor with a sword and shield. Though, in essence, they are both fighters...they are still 2 different archetypes. The two characters should attack, defend, and roleplay almost completely differently.

If the difference between them mechanically is "One is wearing less armor and using a different weapon" then they certainly don't FEEL very distinct. It might be possible to make these characters distinct simply by choosing different maneuvers, but it is more interesting IMHO, to have them as different classes with more to set them apart mechanically.

err...I think people may be playing a little fast and loose with the word "archetype" then. I'll agree that they are different types of character, but both of your examples could easily be the "hero" or "anti-hero" (tougher would be the "mother" ). Not that I'm suggesting we need stick to Jungian or literary archetypes, those are archetypes for analyzing different fields.

To take your example a step further..what about two heroes who wear armor, but one uses a sword and shield and the other two scimitars. Surely they should also "FEEL very distinct", yes? Yet I don't see people calling for separate classes there. How about the lightly armored warriors? You mention one wielding a big club. Others might wield light dueling weapons, another a bow...are any of these guys sneaky, woodsy or urban, strong, agile, wealthy, musical? That's 3 x 2^6 or 192 archetypes! [Vizzini]Wait till I get going! Now, where was I?[/Vizzini]

Now, obviously, there will be more than the Core 4. To reduce the game to 3 or 4 classes requires (IMO) a design more like True20. We don't have that to work from. I think we do have enough structure in place to make the two judgments that do make sense:

• Can a solid representation of the character concept be made as a build of another class through the structures we already have?
• Can we add the mechanics necessary without diluting or weighing down that other class too much?

If we can say yes to both of those questions, I think its solid evidence that the character type in question wasn't really as "archetypical" in D&D terms as its proponents might hope.

 

[Gargoyle]

Which is why this game I'd modular. If you don't like it, don't use it.

Agreed, but along with modularity, I desire a certain amount of completeness with the core rules of this edition that we have never seen before, and I'm disappointed that I hear now we may not get it. They teased us with rumors of every core class from every ruleset being supported and I bought into that idea. Now I suspect that the realities of a limited page count are influencing their design and causing them to backpedal a bit. We are probably going to certainly have a warlord class at some point. It just probably won't be playtested as well and will feel tacked on (much like psionics of every edition), and warlord fans may have to resort to third party implementations in the meantime or fighters that are almost but not quite what they want to play.

I'm not too worried about it though. The main thing is that they get the fighter, wizard, cleric and rogue right. It's just that one disadvantage of a more transparent design process is that I get my hopes up about some details that just don't pan out sometimes.

 

[Ratskinner]

I think your last sentence points to the heart of the problem. WOTC are pulling discrete elements out of 4th and saying here you are we are representing 4th, but fans of 4th like the way these elements coalesced into a particularly effective game for them with a particular style of pacing, etc. WOTC take an atomistic view of 4th and other editions and fans of 4th take a more holistic view. That is why when 4th ed fans look at DDN it does not remind them of 4th ed or look especially interesting - despite having 4th ed elements therein.

Strange, then, that you see 4e supporters howling so often about the lack of this or that specific mechanical element in next.

I figure that there are many reasons to love (or hate) 4e. Some 4e supporters loved it for the "gestalt" of 4e's mechanics and don't care too much about specific mechanical elements. For other this or that element is the thing that made 4e great (or one of them). Probably other see it as some combination of the two.

 

[Gorgoroth]

Warlords were really fun in 4e, I played a couple, one was a straight up Killswitch build, and the other was a re-working of my dragonborn ranger|paladin to be a ranger|warlord, which was just insanely powerful and good since lots of immediate attacks were possible. And the healing....I mean, it was almost too much healing. Considering we survived as a group for three years without a healer and didn't have a single PC death, I think 4e is way too easy with the default difficulty settings. But that's beside the point, if Warlords come back in DDN as their own class, I'd be happy, but I can totally see the point about building one as a fighter specialty...what's so bad about that? Being able to give the barbarian an extra attack or helping the wizard dodge a charging orc with a timely warning as an interrupt are good maneuvers. I really don't see the problem with this...they ARE trying to win 4e players over...by making a superior game that non-4e lovers can also get behind. 4e is too much work/effort/system master for the player side with casual gamers, and 3e seems to be the same for the DM side (even non-casual DMs find it a lot of work to customize monsters and scenarios)...I know I did when I tried a few times.

Let's see what they come up with before jumping on them. Vote with your wallets! So far, even with its flaws, I see DDN as the game I want to play if I can pick it up quick, has mechanics that don't make my head spin (I write games for a living and am very logical...and after a while I felt really...not only constrained, but actually angry at the rules limitations...esp the flying rules and the paltry number of spells per day allowed on the wizard...even though I never played a wizard in 4e...it's because I didn't want to. A wizard is not a controller, it's a whatever you want to do with your spells today class. That's its inherent charm, not some pre-defined roles for your 5-minute encounter based design where a fighter or warlord or rogue or archer can all do VERY similar things with their powers).

 

[Ratskinner]

I can't entirely disagree with Mearl's approach to Warlord, but then we should apply the logic to Barbarian, Ranger, Paladin, Monk, Assassin, Sorcerer, and leave four base classes with multiple branches. However, we all know that won't be happening. I'm trying to follow the logic of that, and the only thing I can come up with is Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian, these are all legacy classes with a lot of history meant to evoke a certain feel or nostalgia. I'm annoyed by the idea that a Paladin is in no matter what because it's been in 4 editions of the game, but the Warlord is not because it was only in 4e. I mean how else can you apply his logic about the Warlord and not apply it to the other cousin classes?

Because you can look at it from a mechanical point of view instead. Although I'd not cry if they did apply the same logic to those character types as well.

I note that we haven't seen classes for all those you mention. In particular, I will be very surprised if Assassin is its own class. Monk is pretty weird, so it makes some sense as its own class. Barbarian, I don't get it as a separate class from fighter, but whatever. Ranger...the "Aragorn"....seems like a Fighter with Woodsman background and healing specialty to me. Sorcerer....seems like a wizardly tradition. Paladin, seems like a fighter/cleric, or a fighter with some appropriate backgrounds and specialty choices.

And there are plenty of thematic and flavorful characters, whole archetypes, which lend themselves more toward a Warlord than a Fighter. Are we really going to force each other to list examples, then pick at them endlessly? I'm surprised that was even used as a reason for dissolving Warlord upthread. And if we did absorb all Warlord archetypes and character examples into the Fighter, then we also must lump Aragorn into the pile as a Fighter that builds on a mix of wilderness and 'lost heir' options, and St. George as a particularly devote Fighter with some divine smattering, and Conan as a Fighter with a mix of Strength-based feats and a dash of thieving.

I hope we don't need to, but I don't have any problem with your analyses.

People in this thread keep using the word "archetype", I do not think it means what they think it means.