Mike Mearls Happy Fun Hour: The Warlord

[FrogReaver]

I know that when I say "I want a warlord" I'm really saying "I want character who's schtick is martial support." And considering that there's been multiple other Warlord fans who have said they're fine with calling a the warlord something else, I really don't think it's an issue that they'd have to name the martial support class something else if a martial support subclass snags the name first

Yes. But names evoke concept as well. I've not seen a sufficiently broad name to encompass martial support options like the name warlord does. So if the change the name then the concepts evoked and created for that new name will inevitably shift as well. It's not that I'm against another name if there is a good alternative provided but I've yet to see a good alternative.

 

[Bawylie]

The classic D&D classes are heavily based on things from myth, literature and history or some combination of all of the above. Ranger= Aragon, fighter= Knight/gritty soldier, Paladin=Knight ideal, Cleric= templar etc. Hell a few classic cleric spells are from the bible.

The warlord is weak in literature at least in the way 4E had it. Sure there have been things like Fighter generals (Caesar, Alexander, Richard the Lionheart etc), but that maps more to things like the AD&D fighter with followers as a core of an army than the 4E warlord.

Its easier to find other things as well, Merlin=wizard, Morgan Le Feyy sorcerer or warlock, Arthur Paladin or Fighter.

The Warlord is not drawn from similar sources it was purely a gamist creation for the 4E rules system as another leader type for clerics. It was not an organic creation as such perhaps derived from the 3.5 Marshall which was basically designed for the D&D miniatures game (designed by Heinsoo and Tweet). Quite a few D&Disms also date back to the classical/biblical world (polymorph, magic weapons to hit, clerics and cleric spells etc). The names also a problem although its not unique there (Ardent, Warden, Duskblade,etc). You get a basic idea for a D&D class from the name at least the PHB ones if you are remotely familiar with pop culture, myths, literature etc.

You could boil the game down to 3 or 4 classes (probably 4 minimum if you merged cleric/mage you may no longer be playing D&D). For a generic d20 game Warrior, Expert, Magic would be your 3 classes I suppose.

The warlord is not weak in literature or history. But leaving that aside, literary or historical examples don’t map cleanly to any one class’ suite of abilities anyway. For instance is Maleficent a Druid, Sorceror, Warlock, witch, or wizard?

Secondly, the origins of the warlord aren’t relevant. D&D can draw on a prior edition of itself for inspiration - there’s not barrier that excludes “gamist creations for the 4E rules system.” That’s a ridiculous proposition entirely, if it meant anything at all - which it definitely does not.

And then we get down to your last point, which essentially lines up with my point. So what are we doing here? You agree with me “except warlord” for whatever rationale you might come up with?

Good gravy.

 

[HomegrownHydra]

The cleric wasn't based on the Knights Templar even though the 2e PHB used them as an example. The cleric was something cobbled together at the request of a player in order to take down another player's vampire character in one of Dave Arneson's early campaigns. The cleric doesn't map to popular characters or archetypes any better than the warlord does. Frankly, the warlord (commander in 13th Age) makes more sense than the cleric (and I have nothing against the cleric).

 

[Zardnaar]

The cleric wasn't based on the Knights Templar even though the 2e PHB used them as an example. The cleric was something cobbled together at the request of a player in order to take down another player's vampire character in one of Dave Arneson's early campaigns. The cleric doesn't map to popular characters or archetypes any better than the warlord does. Frankly, the warlord (commander in 13th Age) makes more sense than the cleric (and I have nothing against the cleric).

I know the origin of the cleric but you have things like Thulsa Doom or even Jesus as several D&D come fro m the bible.

2E did associate irate clerics with the knights templar that's not a bad example.

Aloof D&D isms also go back to the classical world as well. It's not exact of course with Druids being an example but for most classes you can find examples and read the phb.

The warlord was outright gambit though and any association with Caesar, Napoleon etc is tenuous at best where the fighter matches up reasonably well especially with TSR.

What we beleive here is mostly irrelevant. It's the new players who will associate classes with fantasy and historic figures and a Warlord is a hard set there especially with that name.

The other D&Disms have filtered into online games and pop culture. If you did not play 4E most people won't even know what a warlord is conceptually. That's the main point.

 

[HomegrownHydra]

Zardnaar, at what point in D&D's history did it become unacceptable to add new content?

What we beleive here is mostly irrelevant. It's the new players who will associate classes with fantasy and historic figures and a Warlord is a hard set there especially with that name.

The other D&Disms have filtered into online games and pop culture. If you did not play 4E most people won't even know what a warlord is conceptually. That's the main point.

Oh, please. People today are perfectly capable of reading a description of a warlord or whatever it's called and understanding what its concept is, just as people in the 90's were able to read the 2e PHB and figure out what the cleric did.

 

[Remathilis]

A non-fighty/not very fighty Warlord sounds...

...really really annoying.

Akin to a back-seat driver.

Sure, in the real world we have coaches and instructors but... well maybe its just our table and we assume to roles of adventurers that typically graduated from boot camp. Having someone else telling you you're doing it wrong, the counterpart of 'do it like this its better!', is.. at best annoying. At worst, rather rude!

I guess. I mean, people usually didn't take umbrage to a bard giving people inspiration via song and story, so I think the warlord could be framed in a similar light. I mean, I he COULD be played as pompous ass telling people what to do all the time, but that's not necessarily part of the archetype.

The one area I think I might object though is called the "don't touch my character" rule. It spawned, unfortunately, from the problem of 4e powers to move characters (both PC and monsters) without outside force (such as grappling or shoving) to reflect some narrative trope (examples could include King's Castle moving a rogue and warlord PC without the rogue's consent, or the infamous CaGI overriding monster Int or tactics to run up and take a whack). We have always ruled such effects either need to provide some manner of resisting/ignoring or instead incentevise the action rather than dictate it (so the rogue could theoretically ignore a warlord's buff if he wants and a monster would be allowed to attack the fighter in whatever manner makes sense).

5e, even when dealing with powers like Commander Strike or Marking, has run to that design paradigm, and I think that's for the best.

 

[Zardnaar]

Zardnaar, at what point in D&D's history did it become unacceptable to add new content?


Oh, please. People today are perfectly capable of reading a description of a warlord or whatever it's called and understanding what its concept is, just as people in the 90's were able to read the 2e PHB and figure out what the cleric did.

1985 gets mentioned a lot.

 

[HomegrownHydra]

1985 gets mentioned a lot.

So are you opposed to the sorcerer and warlock being included in D&D?

 

[Zardnaar]

So are you opposed to the sorcerer and warlock being included in D&D?

If they were gone I would not be that upset throw in the Monk as well.

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

I guess. I mean, people usually didn't take umbrage to a bard giving people inspiration via song and story, so I think the warlord could be framed in a similar light. I mean, I he COULD be played as pompous ass telling people what to do all the time, but that's not necessarily part of the archetype.

The one area I think I might object though is called the "don't touch my character" rule. It spawned, unfortunately, from the problem of 4e powers to move characters (both PC and monsters) without outside force (such as grappling or shoving) to reflect some narrative trope (examples could include King's Castle moving a rogue and warlord PC without the rogue's consent, or the infamous CaGI overriding monster Int or tactics to run up and take a whack). We have always ruled such effects either need to provide some manner of resisting/ignoring or instead incentevise the action rather than dictate it (so the rogue could theoretically ignore a warlord's buff if he wants and a monster would be allowed to attack the fighter in whatever manner makes sense).

5e, even when dealing with powers like Commander Strike or Marking, has run to that design paradigm, and I think that's for the best.

I think a bard singing an inspirational tune or setting a suitable beat is more palatable. Akin to ye Olde car stereo blaring out tunes as you floor it.

However, if the bard was shouting out commands like an up-beat exercise video? Yeah... they're going to find themselves on the wrong side of a Bag of Devouring.

AND LIFT AND STRETCH AND SWING THAT MACE AND STAB AND STAB! GOOD YOU'RE DOING GREAT! NOW THE ELVES!