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

[Lanefan]

So, you'd be telling other people how to play the game and how to play their characters?
Do you tell that to the wizard casting Haste on you? (That spell had some nasty side effects in certain editions, too, but I'm betting you didn't, you just expected to be asked about whether you wanted to age or risk losing a turn if the caster's concentration was broken.)

I've played Fighters who told Mages right up front that if I ever received a Haste from them it'd be the last spell they ever cast - assuming I survived the aging process.

Then again, Haste is very rarely used in our games anyway, mostly because of that aging drawback.

That would be entirely on you, Lanefan. Why are you picking hypothetical fights?

In this case, because the character I hate most is the character who sends others to do the fighting and dying - no xp or loot for the dead, just a new character for its player - while it survives to scoop its share and send the next sucker out to die.

That said, a whole party of Lazy Warlords would be funny as hell:

WL 1: "You go in and fight it, I'll give you support from here."
WL 2: "No, bro, I got your back. You get in there and show us how it's done."
WL 3: "I'll stay here in the corner and support both of you."
WL 4: <points at WL 3> "And I'll be right behind her."

Meanwhile as they argue, the monster gets ever closer...

 

[Mind of tempest]

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.

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...

if I had sufficient data to work from it would be easier to cover the idea but that would be over a decade of study even in optimal conditions.
it would also be picking a name in not exactly stable conditions

 

[Tony Vargas]

I've played Fighters who told Mages right up front that if I ever received a Haste from them it'd be the last spell they ever cast - assuming I survived the aging process.

Like I said, understandable to expect permission before receiving a spell with a serious drawback. (But, the wizard could still lay it on you, and (b) party conflict, yet you have no objection to the wizard existing.)
There's no drawback to an action grant, tho, and they generally take a free action on your part, so they're voluntary.

... and, remember, that's focusing on one kinda out-there build in the prior edition, with 7 builds that don't have the issue.

he character I hate most is the character who sends others to do the fighting and dying while it survives to scoop its share and send the next sucker out to die.

So old-school henchmen and hirelings are right out? (I'll grant, it's not very heroic to hire mercs or conjure up minions and send them forth to die for you. But, y'know, it's nothing new.)

Interestingly, genre often does contain secondary characters who are valued by the heroes and/or contribute something important (perhaps only once at the culmination of a quest or something), but are not capable in combat, often needing to be protected. Though it clearly wasn't intended - the Warlord was presented as a front-line warrior, and it's fluff text & exploit names are generally in line with that - the "lazylord" that fans cobbled together from a few tactical exploits and a perverse willingness to dump STR for INT on a melee character, could readily be used to model such characters, while still contributing, mechanically. It helped that 4e did separate fluff & crunch and let you mod the former.

That said, a whole party of Lazy Warlords would be funny as hell:

"all multiplier, no force" was a joke back then, yeah ... for leaders, in general, even.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Even back in the early days of 3e, rogues still felt more like stealth/skill experts, with the idea of high spike damage being an occasional benefit of being stealthy. WoW was the first time I got exposed to the idea of the rogue being "primarily" a high damage class, with its exploration and scouting abilities being secondary.

It was in 3e, back before the Sage declared No Fun Allowed and took my weapon away, I had a bastard sword rogue who was burrowing through monsters with SA on the regular.

Then the sage took away good weapons, but they put out Song And Silence and I was removing hamstrings instead.

But then as always the game lived loved loved having just entire adventures dedicated to undead, so I spent a lot of time working on my setting during combat instead of engaging because all I was there fore was flanking buddy.

Aaaand we're back to design where a player can play their character's concept all the time instead of just special times the game decides to deign allowing it.

 

[Mind of tempest]

It was in 3e, back before the Sage declared No Fun Allowed and took my weapon away, I had a bastard sword rogue who was burrowing through monsters with SA on the regular.

Then the sage took away good weapons, but they put out Song And Silence and I was removing hamstrings instead.

But then as always the game lived loved loved having just entire adventures dedicated to undead, so I spent a lot of time working on my setting during combat instead of engaging because all I was there fore was flanking buddy.

Aaaand we're back to design where a player can play their character's concept all the time instead of just special times the game decides to deign allowing it.

look undead can be great to fight as there are few reasons to empathes them for them and vampires tend to just want to eat us.
but the lack of other options who were either not people or world-enders does feel bad or at least impractical

 

[Reynard]

Ultimately @Vaalingrade is adding to the argument that there should be NO classes. Want to play a sneaky stabby striker? Awesome. Just pick the right talents/feats/skills/whatever. No need to call it "thief" or "rogue." Play what you want.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Ultimately @Vaalingrade is adding to the argument that there should be NO classes. Want to play a sneaky stabby striker? Awesome. Just pick the right talents/feats/skills/whatever. No need to call it "thief" or "rogue." Play what you want.

There are new, innovative FRPGS out there, like RuneQuest, that don't use classes, at all.
I know, radical stuff...
...maybe someday D&D will be ready for that sort of thing...

 

[TwoSix]

Ultimately @Vaalingrade is adding to the argument that there should be NO classes. Want to play a sneaky stabby striker? Awesome. Just pick the right talents/feats/skills/whatever. No need to call it "thief" or "rogue." Play what you want.

To be fair, there are extremely valid arguments against classes; there's a reason a ton of games don't use them.

Classes absolutely have their strengths, and there's no reason to move D&D away from those strengths, but any examination of class structure should remember the weaknesses of using classes, in order to try and best mitigate them.

 

[Lanefan]

So old-school henchmen and hirelings are right out? (I'll grant, it's not very heroic to hire mercs or conjure up minions and send them forth to die for you. But, y'know, it's nothing new.)

The way they were commonly used wouldn't fly now. Henches and hirelings aren't just robots and do have some sense of self-preservation, and would be fully justified in quitting (or worse) if sent in to danger while their bosses stayed out of it.

Interestingly, genre often does contain secondary characters who are valued by the heroes and/or contribute something important (perhaps only once at the culmination of a quest or something), but are not capable in combat, often needing to be protected.

Indeed, though it'd be a rare player indeed who would want to play that secondary character for the long term. More often they're NPC plot devices e.g. "Makony the Sage is the only person alive who can decipher the heiroglyphs at Atwasia; but the journey is dangerous and he's old and getting frail. Your task as adventurers is to get him there and back in one piece."

No, my bad experiences come from players with otherwise perfectly competent characters who leave the risk-taking to others but are all too happy to share in the spoils and rewards afterwards.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Classes absolutely have their strengths, and there's no reason to move D&D away from those strengths,

TBF, classes and many other D&Disms have their downsides, and there's every reason to avoid moving D&D away from those, too.

Indeed, though it'd be a rare player indeed who would want to play that secondary character for the long term.

I mean, secondary in the usual context of genre with a lone hero and supporting cast. The cleric (if it exists at all), magic-user (if not a villain), halfling gardener rogue, and so forth would be supporting cast in genre, but ensemble in a TTRPG. But that virtually always meant making them powerful in some overt way, so they could contribute and take spotlight turns.

And, yes, it was a bit rare for a player to want to play a non-contributing-in-combat character (early Thief aside) in a game as combat-heavy as D&D has always been, and it was basically impossible for them to play a fully-contributing non-combatant under the class system until pacifist clerics (still magically powerful, of course, just non-violent) and lazy warlords.
4e did inadvertently open that up by giving the warlord action grants and separating fluff from crunch in the presentation of powers.
It's just cool to be able to play a broader range of character concepts.