D&D General Which of these should be core classes for D&D?

[Tony Vargas]

elegance is a long-term refinement it is better to make it work properly first the first of every breed of thing tends to be odd around the edges.

IDK, maybe in art or high society, elegance and refinement are synonymous?
In design, especially systems design like programming, elegance is something that's achieved at creation or not, and is only likely to be lost as you fiddle with or try to improve it.
I could see paring away a system trying to 'lighten' it getting lucky and resulting in elegance, maybe....

This probably isn't going to help, but one of the few D&D class designs that ever seemed remotely elegant to me was the 3e Fighter. While every other class had different spell progressions and long lists of arbitrary features arbitrarily gained at one level or another, the Fighter started with a bonus feat and got another one at every even-numbered level. Full BAB, d10 HD, good FORT, all martial weapon & armor proficiencies, 2 skill pts (worst skill list in the game, not excepting NPC classes), and that's the whole class.

 

[Mind of tempest]

That was problem with the Cleric for decades, yes.
One 4e solved with the Warlord, and also for the Cleric and every other healer (and there was a 'leader for every source).

Now, there was a very notorious, initially seemingly unintended Warlord build, that specialized in giving it's actions to other characters, the flavor text of the premier exploit for that build was giving a command, even though the actual mechanic was the Warlord giving his action to an ally, and, ironically, standing to the side and doing nothing but helping the other character shine. Thing is, there were not enough such exploits until a later supplement intentionally added support for the build, so it was under-performing as it would have to take at least powers that didn't work with it's schtick that it would be really bad at. And, you had to very specifically build for that, so, presumably, that's what you were going for (I've done it, with a warlord, and with a Warlord|Shaman and it's more fun than you might think). The other 7 or so official warlord builds were very clearly fighting, themselves, too.

So (b) really only exists if you both don't understand that 'leader' was 4e jargon for 'support/healer,' and that 4e flavor text did not have the force of rules and could be freely changed by the player. (a) has been a very real problem with the Cleric in the past, but was not a problem with any 4e leader, and it is also something people want, and that one very outre Warlord build could be designed to do, as could a Cleric build in both 3.5 and 4e, the "Pacifist"

what was the build name?

warlord as a class name feels both a bit too still real and too leadery thus it will need a different one.

IDK, maybe in art or high society, elegance and refinement are synonymous?
In design, especially systems design like programming, elegance is something that's achieved at creation or not, and is only likely to be lost as you fiddle with or try to improve it.
I could see paring away a system trying to 'lighten' it getting lucky and resulting in elegance, maybe....

This probably isn't going to help, but one of the few D&D class designs that ever seemed remotely elegant to me was the 3e Fighter. While every other class had different spell progressions and long lists of arbitrary features arbitrarily gained at one level or another, the Fighter started with a bonus feat and got another one at every even-numbered level. Full BAB, d10 HD, good FORT, all martial weapon & armor proficiencies, 2 skill pts (worst skill list in the game, not excepting NPC classes), and that's the whole class.

better to focus on getting something to work than smooth out Jragen and the non-sensical parts till it is both functional and elegant to operate better to have a working if a bit inelegant than elegant uselessness.

 

[Tony Vargas]

what was the build name?

It official builds were Inspiring, Tactical, Resourceful, Bravura, Insightful, and Skirmishing, there was also an Archery alt feature...
...the fan build that gave away it's action every round was called 'Lazy'

warlord as a class name feels both a bit too still real and too leadery thus it will need a different one.

It's a less problematic name than about half those in the 5e PH. Monk, Cleric, Barbarian, Bard, Druid, Sorcerer, Warlock and Paladin - not to mention sub-classes like Thief & Assassin or Necromancer - could all be cut or renamed before you start worrying about 'Warlord...'

...and the proposed alternatives, like Marshal and Commander are explicitly military ranks, so much worse.

 

[Mind of tempest]

It official builds were Inspiring, Tactical, Resourceful, Bravura, Insightful, and Skirmishing, there was also an Archery alt feature...
...the fan build that gave away it's action every round was called 'Lazy'

should have been called the pokemon master as all it does is have others fight for it.

It official builds were Inspiring, Tactical, Resourceful, Bravura, Insightful, and Skirmishing, there was also an Archery alt feature...
...the fan build that gave away it's action every round was called 'Lazy'

It's a less problematic name than about half those in the 5e PH. Monk, Cleric, Barbarian, Bard, Druid, Sorcerer, Warlock and Paladin - not to mention sub-classes like Thief & Assassin or Necromancer - could all be cut or renamed before you start worrying about 'Warlord...'

...and the proposed alternatives, like Marshal and Commander are explicitly military ranks, so much worse.

I do not disagree with your point on other class names but we do not want to make the leader the class and you ever heard of a subordinate warlord? hence in this case it is more directly avoiding an absolute table fight.

never get me started on monk I have no idea how to name that without starting a cultural knife fight and what it is called right now is just flat wrong as well. the rest are hard to deal with but I am less well versed in what the issues are with them.

 

[Tony Vargas]

ever heard of a subordinate warlord?

There certainly can be, a powerful emperor or the like, or just another warlord, might unite several warlords under his banner for instance.
The definition of warlord is one that exists outside formal military and social hierarchies, so, unlike like a Martial or Commander or Captain or whatever, it has no implied legitimate authority or rank.

In that way, the literal meaning of warlord is very like adventurer.

never get me started on monk I have no idea how to name that without starting a cultural knife fight and what it is called right now is just flat wrong as well. the rest are hard to deal with but I am less well versed in what the issues are with them.

I mean .... "Master" would make sense, but, obvious issue with selective rage over perceived rank... "Disciple" maybe?
And, really, there's a lot more Orientalism to purge than just the name...

 

[Lanefan]

Man moves books like no one else and is unquestionably the most well known pop-culture example of "The Dungeons and Dragons class, Ranger". He gave 'wanna-be Aragorn' more of an identity.

And in so doing, destroyed the Ranger class.

Regardless though, the skirmisher who learns about his targets, discovers their weak points and strikes them down, that concept which is absolutely the Ranger isn't one that clanks about in full plate armor

To me, the bolded is what the Rogue is supposed to be and do.

Expanding "favoured enemy" beyond just Giants (and who fights Giants in anything less than the best armour they can get their grubby little mitts on?) didn't help either; though I could get behind giving some other classes versions of favoured enemies. For Assassins, for example, it could be Humans (or humanoids).

 

[Tony Vargas]

And in so doing, destroyed the Ranger class.

Well, that's on topic: cut the Ranger.
...Aragorn can be a Warlord.

skirmisher who learns about his targets, discovers their weak points and strikes them down

is what the Rogue is supposed to be and do.

Sounds like an Assassin. Really, sounds like every D&D character in CaW style play...

 

[Lanefan]

That was problem with the Cleric for decades, yes.
One 4e solved with the Warlord, and also for the Cleric and every other healer (and there was a 'leader for every source).

Now, there was a very notorious, initially seemingly unintended Warlord build, that specialized in giving it's actions to other characters, the flavor text of the premier exploit for that build was giving a command, even though the actual mechanic was the Warlord giving his action to an ally, and, ironically, standing to the side and doing nothing but helping the other character shine.

Yeah, and if I was that other character I'd be in that Warlord's face after a couple of combats, telling him where he could shove his granted actions and suggesting he get in there and get his uniform dirty with the rest of us.

I ain't dying in the front line just so he - who fights as well as I do! - can stand back there unscathed.

Which comes squarely under b) in-party fight generator.

 

[Reynard]

Turning the thief into the "striker" was the worst choice in all of WotC D&D

 

[Vaalingrade]

Turning the thief into the "striker" was the worst choice in all of WotC D&D

Making alchemy require magic for stirring.

Also, the rogue has skill monkey and stabbing people for a ton of damage. What were they going to be? A defender?