Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Class list for PHB
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ComradeGnull" data-source="post: 6011487" data-attributes="member: 6685694"><p>Warlord as a title and Warlord as a class have nothing to do with each other. The name was fixed in 4e and might as well continue- I don't really see how it creates confusion without some intentional Abbott & Costello-style wordplay (Player 1: 'Warlord Krung is a level 10 Fighter.' Player 2: 'I thought he was a Warlord?' Player 1:'Third base!' DM: TPK!).</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I, too, am somewhat annoyed by getting new versions of mental magic monsters six books into a game. However, I don't think that the answer is to include the Psion as a base class (which opens a whole can of worms of making psionics the equivalent of regular magic in terms of prominence when it has never really had that place, and forces a choice of either including another mechanical system or just making psionics a re-fluff of an existing magic type (Willpower, for instance, would work). I would rather just make psionics more like magic so that an eventual Psionics expansion doesn't require re-statting a bunch of monsters- they can just be WP casters from day 1, and psionics vs. mind-focused magic can just be a non-mechanical choice.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I like this idea too- monk as a mystical warrior who can be either an unarmed combat focus, or a focus as a sort of mystic weapon master. Weapon choice should be more narrow than a fighter- whereas a fighter can be a master of a specific weapon, they have a lot of general competency that means that they can pick up nearly anything and be effective with it. Also agree about not shoehorning in Asian weapons- shuriken being one of the most useful thrown weapons for my 4e Rogues always seemed forced to me. I did typically re-fluff them as throwing knives, but still felt a bit odd.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I feel like Rage is a bit more than a fighting technique- more akin to Combat Superiority or Sneak Attack, and thus better suited as the core mechanic for a Barbarian/Berserker class (realistically, the name will be Barbarian for continuity reasons, but I understand the objection). Mechanically, raging should involve adding some damage, adding some ability to soak up damage or fight past the point of incapacity, possibly loose some accuracy, and have some limits imposed on it in terms of length of the rage, endurance, stacking penalties, etc., so that it is an interesting choice of whether to use the rage or not, and for how long, rather than just being something that is always on. That pushes it into class territory for me- also, a Barbarian could chose to be a two weapon fighter or a two-hander fighter, or even a sword and board fighter (don't the Lewis Chessmen show a berserker gnawing on the rim of his shield?) along with his raging. </p><p></p><p>I could possibly see it being a set of Combat Superiority maneuvers- you spend a die to enter a rage for the number of rounds equal to the faces of the die, and then while you have the 'rage' condition going, you can use ragey maneuvers that aren't available outside of it.</p><p></p><p>An enraged Rogue or ranged weapon warrior seems a bit hard to swallow to me. I feel like if you want a Raging Ranger or something, that should be a multi-class choice rather than a specialty.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Realistically, Bard isn't going to be removed as a class. WotC simply isn't going to require multi-classing to create a character that has existed since 1e- it's too contentious.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Well, in 4e the Warlord was both a buffer and a non-magical healer, and had a bit more front line combat capability than a Bard. If we were to translate that into pre-4e terms, the Warlord matches up better with the Paladin than the Bard- better weapon and armor selection, less skill utility, decent social capabilities (due to high Cha and some class abilities rather than just skill usage). I'm not quite sure how you differentiate the Warlord and the Paladin for 5e.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Don't see this happening. Ranger has always been Wis based rather than Int- a Ranger's skill is based on observation skills, common sense, and experience rather than intellectual prowess. It would be perfectly reasonable to be an illiterate ranger. The character concept for the Ranger and Warlord are quite far apart as well- the Warlord is a buffer/healer/front line combat role, whereas the Ranger is a utility/combat role that has lighter armor and often focuses on ranged weapons rather than melee. Wilderness utility and tracking needs to be a core part of the Ranger class to keep continuity with previous editions, whereas the Warlord is more focused on organized, disciplined military-style combat and social roles. It's like making General a sub-class of Scout.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Clerics represent being aligned with a divine power- it's a devotion or vocation. Warlock is a business transaction. I feel like someone who gains power via a figurative or literal deal with the devil is a broad enough fantasy archetype that it deserves some inclusion, and mechanically they've come up with a way to distinguish it. I don't see Druid and Warlock having much in common- Druids have always been nature-communing priests and defenders of the woodlands. Warlocks use power for their own end. Nature magic and possible wildshape are going to be core mechanics for Druids which doesn't match well mechanically for Warlocks.</p><p></p><p>I can see the similarity with Clerics (particularly if you think about Dark Sun's templar class), but I think with Warlocks they are trying to fill two niches- one is a story niche, and one mechanical. Having Warlock as a class with a distinct mechanism gives us another thought-out magic system that can be re-fluffed as needed- I could see creating a setting where all the "clerics" were really Warlocks mechanically.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I think Fighter as Warlord could work if the CS options are made broad enough. I think they're committed to keeping it as a class, however.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ComradeGnull, post: 6011487, member: 6685694"] Warlord as a title and Warlord as a class have nothing to do with each other. The name was fixed in 4e and might as well continue- I don't really see how it creates confusion without some intentional Abbott & Costello-style wordplay (Player 1: 'Warlord Krung is a level 10 Fighter.' Player 2: 'I thought he was a Warlord?' Player 1:'Third base!' DM: TPK!). I, too, am somewhat annoyed by getting new versions of mental magic monsters six books into a game. However, I don't think that the answer is to include the Psion as a base class (which opens a whole can of worms of making psionics the equivalent of regular magic in terms of prominence when it has never really had that place, and forces a choice of either including another mechanical system or just making psionics a re-fluff of an existing magic type (Willpower, for instance, would work). I would rather just make psionics more like magic so that an eventual Psionics expansion doesn't require re-statting a bunch of monsters- they can just be WP casters from day 1, and psionics vs. mind-focused magic can just be a non-mechanical choice. I like this idea too- monk as a mystical warrior who can be either an unarmed combat focus, or a focus as a sort of mystic weapon master. Weapon choice should be more narrow than a fighter- whereas a fighter can be a master of a specific weapon, they have a lot of general competency that means that they can pick up nearly anything and be effective with it. Also agree about not shoehorning in Asian weapons- shuriken being one of the most useful thrown weapons for my 4e Rogues always seemed forced to me. I did typically re-fluff them as throwing knives, but still felt a bit odd. I feel like Rage is a bit more than a fighting technique- more akin to Combat Superiority or Sneak Attack, and thus better suited as the core mechanic for a Barbarian/Berserker class (realistically, the name will be Barbarian for continuity reasons, but I understand the objection). Mechanically, raging should involve adding some damage, adding some ability to soak up damage or fight past the point of incapacity, possibly loose some accuracy, and have some limits imposed on it in terms of length of the rage, endurance, stacking penalties, etc., so that it is an interesting choice of whether to use the rage or not, and for how long, rather than just being something that is always on. That pushes it into class territory for me- also, a Barbarian could chose to be a two weapon fighter or a two-hander fighter, or even a sword and board fighter (don't the Lewis Chessmen show a berserker gnawing on the rim of his shield?) along with his raging. I could possibly see it being a set of Combat Superiority maneuvers- you spend a die to enter a rage for the number of rounds equal to the faces of the die, and then while you have the 'rage' condition going, you can use ragey maneuvers that aren't available outside of it. An enraged Rogue or ranged weapon warrior seems a bit hard to swallow to me. I feel like if you want a Raging Ranger or something, that should be a multi-class choice rather than a specialty. Realistically, Bard isn't going to be removed as a class. WotC simply isn't going to require multi-classing to create a character that has existed since 1e- it's too contentious. Well, in 4e the Warlord was both a buffer and a non-magical healer, and had a bit more front line combat capability than a Bard. If we were to translate that into pre-4e terms, the Warlord matches up better with the Paladin than the Bard- better weapon and armor selection, less skill utility, decent social capabilities (due to high Cha and some class abilities rather than just skill usage). I'm not quite sure how you differentiate the Warlord and the Paladin for 5e. Don't see this happening. Ranger has always been Wis based rather than Int- a Ranger's skill is based on observation skills, common sense, and experience rather than intellectual prowess. It would be perfectly reasonable to be an illiterate ranger. The character concept for the Ranger and Warlord are quite far apart as well- the Warlord is a buffer/healer/front line combat role, whereas the Ranger is a utility/combat role that has lighter armor and often focuses on ranged weapons rather than melee. Wilderness utility and tracking needs to be a core part of the Ranger class to keep continuity with previous editions, whereas the Warlord is more focused on organized, disciplined military-style combat and social roles. It's like making General a sub-class of Scout. Clerics represent being aligned with a divine power- it's a devotion or vocation. Warlock is a business transaction. I feel like someone who gains power via a figurative or literal deal with the devil is a broad enough fantasy archetype that it deserves some inclusion, and mechanically they've come up with a way to distinguish it. I don't see Druid and Warlock having much in common- Druids have always been nature-communing priests and defenders of the woodlands. Warlocks use power for their own end. Nature magic and possible wildshape are going to be core mechanics for Druids which doesn't match well mechanically for Warlocks. I can see the similarity with Clerics (particularly if you think about Dark Sun's templar class), but I think with Warlocks they are trying to fill two niches- one is a story niche, and one mechanical. Having Warlock as a class with a distinct mechanism gives us another thought-out magic system that can be re-fluffed as needed- I could see creating a setting where all the "clerics" were really Warlocks mechanically. I think Fighter as Warlord could work if the CS options are made broad enough. I think they're committed to keeping it as a class, however. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Class list for PHB
Top