D&D 5E D&D podcast!

[D'karr]

Either way, I honestly believe the Barbarian, Ranger, Paladin, Monk, and Warlord either must ALL be absorbed into the Fighter, OR the Warlord must be allowed to be its own class. If you like, I'll detail how different the Warlord and Fighter approach is tomorrow.

Yep, that's pretty much how I see it. Either the classes get absorbed, and the options within the fighter class become much broader to accommodate them, or everything needs a separate class. And the broadening happens through other mechanical constructs.

 

[Garthanos]

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.

The statement that 4e made and yes the one encapsulated by the Warlord is exactly why I picked up 4e ...
not sure statement is however the word I think of....
I see mechanics as a tool to establish expectations for the players and DM the classes being balanced and characters being able to contribute to roughly equal yet distinct ways via roles. Characters being heroic with comeback swings like second winds and not fragile mooks when you began play etc it was about establishing expectations. I could pretty much put the book and mechanics aside and use high rolls are good for the actual game play once I have player expectations in place.

 

[Garthanos]

Yep, that's pretty much how I see it. Either the classes get absorbed, and the options within the fighter class become much broader to accommodate them, or everything needs a separate class. And the broadening happens through other mechanical constructs.

Yup, I see Paladins and Rangers both as fighters with favored enemies and backing organizations ... and backgrounds.

I want them to have access to maneuvers and similar things, why shouldnt they?

 

[GX.Sigma]

The Paladin and Ranger comparisons aren't really fair.

Paladins and Rangers are basically like Fighters, but with something extra. A Paladin, if you like, is a Fighter Plus.

A Warlord is basically like a Fighter, but only represents one of the things that Fighters should be able to do. The Warlord is a Fighter Minus.

The Paladin and Ranger can't exist within the Fighter class because they add something. The Warlord can exist within the Fighter class because it's just a sub-set of all the things Fighters can do.

 

[Obryn]

A Warlord is basically like a Fighter, but only represents one of the things that Fighters should be able to do. The Warlord is a Fighter Minus.

Not seeing it. Mostly because I've played a system where this is not even a little bit true. A well-designed Warlord doesn't have to play anything at all like a well-designed Fighter.

And you're getting the argument backwards - if a Fighter can't do it now, then you're saying that right now, the Fighter is a Fighter Minus. I'm on board with making Fighters incredibly awesome, but as Fighters. Not as Warlords.

-O

 

[GX.Sigma]

Not seeing it. Mostly because I've played a system where this is not even a little bit true. A well-designed Warlord doesn't have to play anything at all like a well-designed Fighter.

I'm not talking about mechanics, I'm talking about niche and role. If the Warlord is supposed to be the guy who's awesome at war, I don't think that should be a separate class, because I think the Fighter should be the guy who's awesome at war.

I'm on board with making Fighters incredibly awesome, but as Fighters. Not as Warlords.

I think that's where we disagree: I want to make Fighters incredibly awesome as warlords.

 

[mlund]

You can throw a lot more words at it if you want, but when it comes down to it, I think the distinction you're drawing is shallow and based on re-defining terms in a way that suits your argument. When it comes down to it, Barbarians and Paladins are every bit as "all about combat" as a Warlord is. And insofar as both a Fighter and a Warlord are "about combat," they do so in very different ways - much as barbs, paladins, and rangers do.

Agreed. It's ultimately an internally inconsistent argument built out of a ton of hand-me-down rationalizations. It seems like if you're looking for an excuse to kill the Warlord off, you turn a blind eye to the inconsistencies of having a Monk, Barbarian, Paladin, and Ranger sitting right there because, hey "Everything 4E = BadWrongFun." All it takes is denigrating the Warlord's role and play-style as less important or distinct than the others, relying on appeals to personal taste and opinion, not any sort of compelling logical construct.

Not seeing it. Mostly because I've played a system where this is not even a little bit true. A well-designed Warlord doesn't have to play anything at all like a well-designed Fighter.

And you're getting the argument backwards - if a Fighter can't do it now, then you're saying that right now, the Fighter is a Fighter Minus. I'm on board with making Fighters incredibly awesome, but as Fighters. Not as Warlords.

I could see Awesome Fighter As Warlord back before they sunk the whole idea of Sub-classes and gave us ridiculously background-drive stuff like the Monk and the Barbarian as stand-alone classes.

The "Battle Leader Fighting Style" is exactly what I pointed it out to be: a poison-pill to kill the Warlord and take a diluted, narrow slice of his stuff so as to say "there, I fixed it," so people will stop asking for the real class while h4ters get to dance on the Warlord's grave.

It really comes across as just another obfuscation thrown up as WotC back-peddles again and again into a position that looks remarkably like "nothing in 4E can be allowed to be in Next."

I'm not talking about mechanics, I'm talking about niche and role. If the Warlord is supposed to be the guy who's awesome at war, I don't think that should be a separate class, because I think the Fighter should be the guy who's awesome at war.

Wait, what? Who said the Fighter's shtick was "awesome at war," exactly? The Fighter is the best at physical personal combat (albeit he only beats the Monk and Barbarian on versatility and the Rogue in Endurance). When it comes to the bigger aspects of war (recon, logistics, strategy, group tactics, siege, ordnance, morale, etc.) you have a slew of better-suited character classes already.

- Marty Lund

 

[GX.Sigma]

"Everything 4E = BadWrongFun."

The "Battle Leader Fighting Style" is exactly what I pointed it out to be: a poison-pill to kill the Warlord and take a diluted, narrow slice of his stuff so as to say "there, I fixed it," so people will stop asking for the real class while h4ters get to dance on the Warlord's grave.

It really comes across as just another obfuscation thrown up as WotC back-peddles again and again into a position that looks remarkably like "nothing in 4E can be allowed to be in Next."

I'm so glad we're discussing things rationally and not just using inflammatory, edition-warring rhetoric.

Wait, what? Who said the Fighter's shtick was "awesome at war," exactly?

No one said it in so many words, but it was always a big part of the endgame in old-school D&D, and the Fighter was always the best at it. When I think of a "warlord" in D&D, I think of an old-school high-level Fighter.

 

[Bluenose]

The current "issue" with cramming the warlord into the fighter is that everything mechanical for the warlord is not necessarily cued up from the same abilities as the fighter. Fighter STR, DEX, CON whereas the Warlord is INT, CHA, WIS. When a warlord needs to negotiate he's not using STR, he's using CHA. And a warlord should be that negotiator. Since when do negotiation duties of any kind fall on the fighter in D&D? In addition, if you look at the most basic level the fighter's schtick as an "at-will" in DDN is attack with weapon, the warlord's however is not. Most of the things he does "at-will" are keyed to moving his allies into position for attack, and granting them attacks. Mechanically the fighter is currently inadequate for that aspect. From the skills side (ability checks) I only have to mention again what I already did (CHA).

To be fair, the idea that the Fighter can't be the "negotiator" is a function of 3rd edition D&D. In BD&D/AD&D you'd have been rolling a Charisma check rather than a "Talky" skill, and there was no reason to assume a Fighter couldn't have rolled good charisma. With sensible NWPs/Skills, it was perfectly reasonable to assume the Fighter would be the guy/girl at the front of the party when it was time to talk to other people. One of mine certainly was. Single figure Int and Wis, 18 Cha, decent in a fight, high morale for followers and good reactions from groups. To paraphrase what one of the other PCs said, "You give him a bunch of people to lead and he'd get them to follow him anywhere, and you give him someone who knows where anywhere is he'll not get lost on the way." I don't think as Next is at the moment there's any way to make that character again, and with Mearls talking about inspiration as a thing for Bards I'm pretty sure there never will be.

 

[Campbell]

Honestly with no out of turn actions or movement, no inspiration mechanics, no healing, and assuming no ability for a 4e PC to affect mental influence without magic I'm not seeing a lot for the Next fighter to pilfer.