D&D 5E D&D podcast!

[Ratskinner]

The thing is, large-scale generals had to start somewhere. Think squad sergeants in the Malazan series, for example.

Unfortunately not really a decisive argument. See, Warlordy activities existing in a setting or character who are otherwise "Fightery" don't actually settle the distinction between Warlord-as-class and Warlord-as-maneuvers and Warlord-as-speciality.

And remember - to mix more kick-buttitude with less war-leading, you multiclass just like most other composite concepts.

Or just select more aggressive Fighter maneuvers.

By that logic, a Paladin is a Fighter with holy magic skills and a Ranger is a Fighter with druid magic and some skills.

I think that would be a viable way to approach it. (Not with all classes, mind you.)

 

[Obryn]

Speaking more broadly than the immediate "Name a Warlord" problem.

I think first we need to address the far more critical "name a Cleric with spells, blunt weapons, and plate armor from non-D&D fantasy or mythology."

-O

 

[mlund]

The three key descriptors of the Warlord are as follows:
1. Warrior
2. Leader
3. Tactician

Of those 3, only #1 overlaps with the Fighter's bailiwick. Further, each one associates with different attributes. Warriors are based around Strength or Dexterity with Constitution to back them up. Leadership is primarily rooted in Charisma, and tactics are an operation of Intelligence (with possibly Wisdom to back them up). I think one of the sticking points with the Warlord is that he puts his mental stats into concrete combat applications without any spell-casting. In that regard he's vastly distinct from the Fighter - both in story and mechanics - probably more then the Barbarian or the Monk.

Now, there are two ways of looking at bringing this style of character into being.

The first way would be as a customization of Fighter. This could involve a Specialty in Leadership and expanding the Maneuvers list to include Tactical Maneuvers - ways to spend Martial Damage Dice to boost other characters in your squad during combat, enhanced or limited by your Intelligence.

The second way would be as a distinct class. This class would be much like the Monk - Combat Expertise, its own "Tactical" Maneuvers list, and some sort of "Leadership" resource to manage.

The advantages of Option A include putting Leadership on the table for all classes and allowing Fighters to wade into Tactical Maneuvers as much or as little as they like. On the down side it involves complicating the Fighter's maneuvers list. Maybe that's not a bad thing, though. Right now he's only got one cooperative ability in the whole class: Protect.

The advantage of Option B is that it is self-contained and easier to manage and balance.

- Marty Lund

 

[Ratskinner]

I think first we need to address the far more critical "name a Cleric with spells, blunt weapons, and plate armor from non-D&D fantasy or mythology."

The traditional D&D cleric is taken as an amalgam of several christian saints and legends. It is far rarer in fantasy literature.

I'd not weep to see it go, or have some kind of "Saint" specialty and/or background to flavor characters looking for a divine touch. That would give you:
Paladin = Fighter + Saintly stuff
Cloistered Cleric = Wizard + Saintly stuff
Trad. Cleric = Fighter/Wizard + Saintly stuff

I know people keep trying to say "This is about traditionalists screwing 4e...you wouldn't do that to the Paladin/Cleric/Ranger!", but for me its not, and I willingly would. Its about effectively representing character types in 5e with a minimum of fuss and mechanical trouble.

 

[D'karr]

If only there was a Warlord class! Fie upon these Fighters, Rangers, and Paladins! None of them express the demonstrated leadership abilities of this character adequately!" ? I submit that the realistic answer is very near 0.

The issue at stake is a class based system in which inclusions in one area usually exclude inclusions in others. This is the basic problem (without taking the spellcasting to remove the problem) with the 3.x paradigm of Fighter / Rogue / Caster. If you are good at casting you were excluded from being good at fighting. If you were good at fighting you were excluded from being good at skills or casting. The balancing mechanic of the class based system is that if I add A to the triangle on one side (fighting, skills, casting), I have to remove the "equivalent" of A from one, or more of the other sides.

The reason there have customarily been dozens of classes in the game is because of all the other (customization features) additions that the game makes. Instead of poorly depicting a class concept by tacking on multiple different other concepts from the customization features, a new class is designed to handle that in balance with the other existing classes, and still have the opportunity to tack on customization features as wanted.

A fighter in no other edition has ever had mechanical underpinnings to inspire his comrades, tactically change the battlefield, maneuver his comrades, affect the action economy, allow saves, and shift the tide of battle. Most of these things could have been accomplished by spell casting in some way, but usually not by one class. The cleric had some, the wizard had some, and the bard had some.

When designing the new class system, by saying that you are rolling a particular class into another, what you are in effect doing is removing customization options at the most base level. Because you will be using your available customization options to emulate another class instead of selecting the other class and then customizing to taste.

What the 4e warlord introduced was an actual dimension to the game that had solid mechanical aspects, as well as narrative aspects, that were not magical, and that were balanced against the other classes (a fully developed class with class features). Leaving the additional aspects/customization features (backgrounds, themes, feats, skills and powers) still open for customization as wanted. Something the fighter never had in any edition before.

 

[Ratskinner]

When designing the new class system, by saying that you are rolling a particular class into another, what you are in effect doing is removing customization options at the most base level. Because you will be using your available customization options to emulate another class instead of selecting the other class and then customizing to taste.

No you aren't. Not anymore than forcing a character to choose between Warlord or Fighter in 4e. Both have a strong combat base, with other stuff added on. You'd still be keeping the combat base and be choosing your add-ons within the fighter class rather than at the class-selection level.

At least, if the Warlordy stuff is within the Fighter maneuvers. This may be a good argument that the Warlordy stuff shouldn't be a Specialty. I would buy it for that purpose as a working hypothesis.

What the 4e warlord introduced was an actual dimension to the game that had solid mechanical aspects, as well as narrative aspects, that were not magical, and that were balanced against the other classes (a fully developed class with class features). Leaving the additional aspects/customization features (backgrounds, themes, feats, skills and powers) still open for customization as wanted. Something the fighter never had in any edition before.

None of which changes if Warlord is a bunch of fighter maneuvers...except that now the Fighter can dip without having to multiclass.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

The question we're trying to address is whether those Warlord need to be a unique class. So, looking at your list, before the 4e-Warlord was around, what would you have labelled each of those characters? For how many of them would you have been thinking: "Oh gosh, he's a <whatever>, but really there's so much more! If only there was a Warlord class! Fie upon these Fighters, Rangers, and Paladins! None of them express the demonstrated leadership abilities of this character adequately!" ? I submit that the realistic answer is very near 0.

I can't address fictional characters in novels or movies, because I didn't write them, but I *can* do so for my D&D characters. I've had a character since the AD&D days that I *have* always thought about in the terms you mention above, "She's a Fighter, but really there's so much more. If only there was a class that better suited what she's all about. Fie upon these Fighters, Rangers, and Paladins! None of them express the demonstrated leadership abilities of the character adequately!"

She made it to 9th level as a Fighter (for the followers) with no strength bonus in a party of min-maxers (somehow), then dual-classed into Bard for the leadership (which I'd always role-played anyway). Finally I would be able to leverage her highest two stats: Intelligence and Charisma.

So, even if the "realistic answer" is very near zero, it is most certainly *not* zero, and for me, that's good enough a reason to continue to include the Warlord as its own class. I don't care what you call it, but it has to do what a warlord in 4e does.

A fighter in no other edition has ever had mechanical underpinnings to inspire his comrades, tactically change the battlefield, maneuver his comrades, affect the action economy, allow saves, and shift the tide of battle. Most of these things could have been accomplished by spell casting in some way, but usually not by one class. The cleric had some, the wizard had some, and the bard had some.

Yes, this is what I mean

When designing the new class system, by saying that you are rolling a particular class into another, what you are in effect doing is removing customization options at the most base level. Because you will be using your available customization options to emulate another class instead of selecting the other class and then customizing to taste.

What the 4e warlord introduced was an actual dimension to the game that had solid mechanical aspects, as well as narrative aspects, that were not magical, and that were balanced against the other classes (a fully developed class with class features). Leaving the additional aspects/customization features (backgrounds, themes, feats, skills and powers) still open for customization as wanted. Something the fighter never had in any edition before.

And this.

 

[mlund]

What the 4e warlord introduced was an actual dimension to the game that had solid mechanical aspects, as well as narrative aspects, that were not magical, and that were balanced against the other classes (a fully developed class with class features). Leaving the additional aspects/customization features (backgrounds, themes, feats, skills and powers) still open for customization as wanted. Something the fighter never had in any edition before.

THIS

Every edition before 4E had the Fighter (and all non-casting classes, actually) stuck with a simple script: hit monsters and sponge damage (if the DM feels magnanimous enough to attack you instead of walking by and pounding the Characters That Matter [IE - "casters"]).

Late 3.5 introduced ways beyond "Trip" and "Grapple" to hinder enemies in martial combat with feats that let the Rogue trade out Sneak Attack damage for penalties against monsters. The Marshall introduced a second-tier warrior who could make his allies better in combat. 4th Edition actually gave the Fighter shticks to pin down and hinder enemies and created the Warlord class. Heroes of the Feywild even introduced semi-Martial Bard build in the Skald.

But all of these things are innovations. For most of D&D's history the spell casters held every card when it came to matters of manipulating the battlefield, enhancing allies, and generally anything having to do with team work or using Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma in combat.

In some regards, what DnDNext is showing us is a regression in game design on this topic. It's even kind of humorous because you see so many fits and starts in D&D where the concept of a squad leader is in the story, but there's a gaping hole where the mechanics should be. From its roots in Tactical Miniatures Wargaming the Squad Leader was a critical component. The 1E Fighter attracted followers and built a stronghold. Famous leader characters in the 80s and 90s had nothing on their mechanical resume - just a plot device in a novel. The Leadership feat in 3.X just gave you a henchman. It's always been there: an empty void where the Warlord / Marshall / Tactician is supposed to go.

- Marty Lund

 

[D'karr]

No you aren't. Not anymore than forcing a character to choose between Warlord or Fighter in 4e. Both have a strong combat base, with other stuff added on. You'd still be keeping the combat base and be choosing your add-ons within the fighter class rather than at the class-selection level.

Except that nobody is forcing anyone to select warlord or fighter. If I select warlord I know exactly what I'm getting, and all the other options are still available. If I select fighter I know exactly what I'm getting, and all the other options are still available. If the only option is fighter there is no choice. If the base ability for the fighter is Strength, and when I select the option for warlord that is still the only option then there is no option.

Fighter "builds" in 4e usually used STR, and CON as their defining attributes. Warlord "builds" were based of INT and CHA. Just that little option changes things drastically at the base level. The fighter could afford to dump stat intelligence or charisma if he wanted. The warlord would not. It is these little nuances that get lost when you cut everything off the same cloth. For all the talk about "sameness" in 4e rolling everything into less classes is not bound to provide less "sameness".

At least, if the Warlordy stuff is within the Fighter maneuvers. This may be a good argument that the Warlordy stuff shouldn't be a Specialty. I would buy it for that purpose as a working hypothesis.

I believe more options are better than less. The warlord has pretty solid mechanical underpinnings that are different than the fighter. If those mechanical underpinnings can be emulated within the fighter without eliminating customization options then I don't care how they do it. What I think people are saying is that eliminating the option and breadth of the class by subsuming it within another class is fine, as long as you don't lose the real differences between the fighter, and warlord. Like I said earlier, in no edition until 4e did you have very specific mechanical underpinnings that accomplished within any single class what was possible with the warlord.

None of which changes if Warlord is a bunch of fighter maneuvers...except that now the Fighter can dip without having to multiclass.

You didn't need to multiclass in 4e you simply selected the warlord. I agree that multiclassing should not be the option that is required to assemble the concept you want. But if someone wants to play a warlord because the warlord singularly has the mechanical structures to satisfy their character concept, and the class has enough mechanical breadth, which I think it does, to warrant a full class instead of a subclass then the sensible solution would be to create a full class.

At this time I have not seen anything, within the structures that they have shown in DDN, that leads me to believe that warlord could be sensibly and satisfactorily represented as a subclass of fighter. I could be wrong, but when the only thing they are concentrating on seems to be the "inspiring" part of the warlord it sure seems like the designers are missing the forest for the trees.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I believe more options are better than less.

So do I. I just don't believe every option HAS to be a class. There's nothing stopping them from removing "Base stats" or whatever you want to call them from the class and add them to the specialty. 4E has shown that builds can expand a class immensely without creating a brand new class whole cloth.