D&D 5E D&D podcast!

[Manbearcat]

The question isn't "does it already do this," but rather, "do these things need to be a different class, or are they part of what a fighter could do?"

IE: Where, mechanically, should the home for these abilities lie? Are they things that are not part of the ability set of a fantasy warrior, and thus need a new class, or are they things that are within the ability set of a fantasy warrior, and thus belong in the Fighter class.

I would agree with you if this wasn't an edition of Dungeons and Dragons with an established class legacy (for the Fighter) of which the designers have made it clear and present that they have anchored their vision to. Hence "does it already do this?" Otherwise, we would be able to easily stake out the same logical territory for any class outside of "Fighting Man", "Supernatural Guy", "Guile, Wits, Tools and Subterfuge Guy." Ranger, Paladin, and Barbarian would easily be folded into the "Fighting Man" when you aren't interested in the legacy-laden question of "does it already to this?" Give me "do these things need to be a different class, or are they part of what a fighter could do?" and we've changed the landscape of the designers' vision.

And thus becomes the crux of the matter. To many 4e fans, the Warlord class is its legacy and not just because of the class but because of the genre implications that come with it. The willingness to dilute its mechanics, its focused thematic content and (as important) its genre implications, while simultaneously maintaining the legacy territory of the Ranger, Paladin and Barbarian is a pretty clear message to 4e fans that the designers are not anchored to (interested in deferring to?) that legacy.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Personally, I think one of the coolest things about the Warlord class in 4e is how it could be used for the Princess build, or any number of other Lazylord concepts, none of which should be based on a fighter. At all.

So, to do the Warlord any justice in Next, said concepts are going to have to be do-able as well, or they've basically just extended their middle finger to a sizable chunk of the community. If they roll it into fighter, they've basically just killed half the viable Warlord builds.

To me (and I'm presumably not alone), this is reason enough for it to be its own class.

 

[Manbearcat]

To many 4e fans, the Warlord class is its legacy and not just because of the class but because of the genre implications that come with it.

I wanted to flesh this out right quick before it generates any incredulity.

The genre implications of the Warlord. The poster child for:

- victory by tactical play (expressly the synergy of teamwork and role specificity). This is the first time in D&D's history where conflict is primarily resolved via sound play at the tactical level (legitimizing martial play) rather than the strategic level (which presupposed winning by magical proxy). Look to the X-Men or Avengers for inspiration here.

- grit and resolve winning the day. Unequivocal, unabashed endorsement of hit points as heroic vigor, steely resolve, inspiration, and guts in the face of overwhelming odds. Not Hit Points as meat. Look to Die Hard for inspiration here.

You could finally play a campaign-spanning, fully martial, Combat as Sport game that didn't presuppose decanters of endless water overflowing dungeons as conflict resolution or clerical healing + generalist wizard spell-loads to solve the story arc puzzle. The Warlord was the poster child for that.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I would agree with you if this wasn't an edition of Dungeons and Dragons with an established class legacy (for the Fighter) of which the designers have made it clear and present that they have anchored their vision to.

The existence of a duelist build for the Fighter already invalidates that. No D&D fighter (even in 4e!) was the Errol Flynn type, and clearly the NEXT fighter is being built to accommodate that type as well.

Yes, they want to serve the legacy of a simple fighter. No, that's not the limit of what they want to do with the thing -- just a starting point.

Otherwise, we would be able to easily stake out the same logical territory for any class outside of "Fighting Man", "Supernatural Guy", "Guile, Wits, Tools and Subterfuge Guy." Ranger, Paladin, and Barbarian would easily be folded into the "Fighting Man" when you aren't interested in the legacy-laden question of "does it already to this?"

That's not entirely true, and I've already spent a LOT of words on how this difference divides, but it hinges on the fact that rangers, paladins, and barbarians define themselves by things other than fighting, while a Warlord does not.

The Fighter isn't being designed to be an UR-class for every weapon-wielding martial combatant, it's being designed to fill the role of "Fantasy Warrior Combat Guy." Which isn't the same as "Noble chivalric knight guy," and isn't the same as "Untamed savage brute guy" and isn't the same as "Woodwise independent hunting guy."

And thus becomes the crux of the matter. To many 4e fans, the Warlord class is its legacy and not just because of the class but because of the genre implications that come with it. The willingness to dilute its mechanics, its focused thematic content and (as important) its genre implications, while simultaneously maintaining the legacy territory of the Ranger, Paladin and Barbarian is a pretty clear message to 4e fans that the designers are not anchored to (interested in deferring to?) that legacy.

The "genre implications" and "thematic content" (which are really ambiguous and open-ended phrases) can be served in ways other than a class. Simply because you might achieve those genres and themes with something like a rule for inspirational healing, a specialty focused on command, and a character sheet that says "FIGHTER" on it instead of "WARLORD" doesn't mean the legacy is abandoned.

It DOES mean that someone looking to play a master of combat, who picks up the Fighter class, might also be a tactical master, without having to open up a whole new class for that.

I think one of the coolest things about the Warlord class in 4e is how it could be used for the Princess build, or any number of other Lazylord concepts, none of which should be based on a fighter. At all.

Hi, I'm a 5e Fighter who has taken the "commander" fighting style, and one of the maneuvers allows me to grant my allies a free attack, and another one lets them get a free movement, and all I have to do is stand here.

Why is that an affront to what should happen?

 

[Blackwarder]

Considering the fact that a lot of us don't like combat-as-sport to the extant 4e brought to us I would much rather have the combat as sport mentality (I.e tactical combat) in a rules module and I wouldn't really want to have my favorite archetype locked into a style of play that frankly I don't really enjoy that often.

Warder

 

[GX.Sigma]

Personally, I think one of the coolest things about the Warlord class in 4e is how it could be used for the Princess build, or any number of other Lazylord concepts...To me...this is reason enough for it to be its own class.

To play devil's advocate here (Mearls's side), that might be the best reason it shouldn't be a class. It goes back to the "story not rules" thing. That warlord build is purely a mechanical novelty: "isn't it cool how I have these mechanics that let me do stuff, even though my character isn't technically doing anything?"

Mike's argument is that the character has to have a place in the imagined world, and then the mechanics should be built to represent that (and remember, tactical grid combat is not assumed in D&DN, so it can't be super-precise forced movement and whatnot). When your lazylord is standing 30 feet from the battle and using powers that give his allies extra attacks, what is the character actually doing?

 

[Blackwarder]

Anyway, would it work for you if the tactically cunning Fighter can do a princess build?

I just had a vision of Storm Brightblade and Carmon Ma'jear running around in a dress...

Warder

 

[Pour]

That's not entirely true, and I've already spent a LOT of words on how this difference divides, but it hinges on the fact that rangers, paladins, and barbarians define themselves by things other than fighting, while a Warlord does not.

The Fighter isn't being designed to be an UR-class for every weapon-wielding martial combatant, it's being designed to fill the role of "Fantasy Warrior Combat Guy." Which isn't the same as "Noble chivalric knight guy," and isn't the same as "Untamed savage brute guy" and isn't the same as "Woodwise independent hunting guy."

The "genre implications" and "thematic content" (which are really ambiguous and open-ended phrases) can be served in ways other than a class. Simply because you might achieve those genres and themes with something like a rule for inspirational healing, a specialty focused on command, and a character sheet that says "FIGHTER" on it instead of "WARLORD" doesn't mean the legacy is abandoned.

It DOES mean that someone looking to play a master of combat, who picks up the Fighter class, might also be a tactical master, without having to open up a whole new class for that.

I think we all see WotC's reasoning behind keeping the Ranger, Paladin, Barbarian, and Monk classes as having much more to do with 'legacy' than any sort of real 'thematic need' when compared to a Warlord. Are you really arguing any of those classes couldn't be folded into the "Fighting Man" with appropriate specialties, feats, and weapon choices? If you are, I'd say fair enough, but why does the Warlord class then become folded into the 'warrior, specialist, soldier' trio when he is in fact the 'marshal, tactician, authority' figure? If you're not arguing that, then wouldn't the precedent of having whole classes based around lesser variants of fighting-men allow for a Warlord class in its own right?

My beef stems from the designers talking about keeping the slight differentiations between RPBM classes intact, but reducing the martial leader/supporter class into an option of the Fighter. Either go all the way folding the cousin classes into Fighter and make a simplified basic game, or go the other way and allow the Warlord to exist within its own design space. Having it both ways marginalizes a theme/play style/genre implication many people enjoy, a large part of them 4thers.

Going back to one of your past posts on the matter, I do believe the Warlord's 'approach' is entirely different from the Fighter's, on day one, level one. Anyone whose played 4e could tell you. But even still, if they were to provide options to change a Fighter into a Warlord, I mean how many changes does it take to warrant a new class? We're talking about adding a whole new 'healing-like' mechanic to a class that would otherwise never deal in team-wide support. Then adding a command specialty, which could never encompass all the thematic variants of the Warlord. So we'd be adding multiple specialties based around the same general concept of command to be tacked onto the class that does not normally facilitate it.

Fighter and Warlord have existed together before, and they more compliment one another than step on each others' toes.

 

[Campbell]

I wanted to flesh this out right quick before it generates any incredulity.

The genre implications of the Warlord. The poster child for:

- victory by tactical play (expressly the synergy of teamwork and role specificity). This is the first time in D&D's history where conflict is primarily resolved via sound play at the tactical level (legitimizing martial play) rather than the strategic level (which presupposed winning by magical proxy). Look to the X-Men or Avengers for inspiration here.

- grit and resolve winning the day. Unequivocal, unabashed endorsement of hit points as heroic vigor, steely resolve, inspiration, and guts in the face of overwhelming odds. Not Hit Points as meat. Look to Die Hard for inspiration here.

You could finally play a campaign-spanning, fully martial, Combat as Sport game that didn't presuppose decanters of endless water overflowing dungeons as conflict resolution or clerical healing + generalist wizard spell-loads to solve the story arc puzzle. The Warlord was the poster child for that.

Agreed. I think the reason why the Warlord is so contentious is because its emblematic of what sets 4e apart from other editions. It's what Holden Shearer, line developer for Exalted, refers to as Mechanics as Statement*. The Warlord represents what a lot of 4e fans value. It is an uncompromising distillation of smart martial mechanical play that enshrines narrative mechanics, inspiration based recovery, an emphasis on working in concert with your allies and visceral violent action stories.

To fans it represents everything 4e did right. To critics it represents everything it did wrong.

The presence of a Warlord class that functions in a similar manner to its 4e incarnation would serve as a flag to 4e fans that there is a place for them in Next. It would also have the detrimental effect of serving as a flag that there's a place for 4e play in Next.

*Not my original observation. Credit goes to MoogleEmpMog on RPG.net.

Mechanics as Statement implies no particular value judgement. The term was used to describe Exalted 2e's Perfect Defenses which are an emblematic instance of what is wrong with that system's charm mechanics - that as long as you have Essence the correct answer to any effect placed on you is to use a "No You Didn't" charm.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Hi, I'm a 5e Fighter who has taken the "commander" fighting style, and one of the maneuvers allows me to grant my allies a free attack, and another one lets them get a free movement, and all I have to do is stand here.

Why is that an affront to what should happen?

Sorry, that doesn't cut it for me; that's ramming a square peg into a round hole. And thanks for the condescending tone, I appreciate it. It will really help sell me on your position.

I realize you've spent a lot of words explaining your position, and why it works for you, but it doesn't make your view any more "correct." It doesn't work for me. I disagree with it. I don't think Fighter is the best chassis to necessarily carry the Warlord concept. In my opinion, it has less in common with the Fighter than Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian or to a lesser extent even Monk or Rogue do.

I'm not trying to convince you here, as I'm quite sure you don't care and have a firmly cemented opinion in any case. Going by your blog posts here, I often disagree with your approach, and that's fine. There are lots of options out there to keep us both happy. This is one of the "great deciders" for whether or not Next will contain options that keep both of us happy.

To that end, I submit that you will likely still be happy with Next, even if Warlord gets to be its own class, even if it's not your preference of how they handle it, whereas I will not be happy with 5e if the Warlord doesn't get to be its own class. That's just how I see it. Either way, it doesn't matter much to me, since I can keep playing what I like with 4th, but it may matter to WotC, in that it's another thing keeping me from buying into their so-called "big tent" that is Next