D&D 5E D&D podcast!

[D'karr]

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.

Agree that not everything needs to be a class. But like I said before, I have not seen anything within what DDN has shown up to now that looks like a subclass is a better option within their framework. 4e showed that build could definitely expand a class but 4e was built on a robust framework that allowed the swapping of equal elements within a class, or even across classes for multiclassing and themes. DDN has not shown, up to now, that type of flexibility within the base framework.

I'm ready to be surprised if and when they do, but until then all I can do is comment on what has been shown up to now.

 

[Cybit]

I'll wait to see how it is implemented before I scream victory or failure. The fighterlord may end up being almost like a whole separate class. Whether I get my concept as a separate class or as a sub-package of a class, I don't really give a damn.

 

[lutecius]

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

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


"Problematic"? Amazing how I've never run into it.

Party leaders have always been a "thing" in D&D. Warlords are that, but better. Squad leaders.

having an established field leader was never a "thing" in my experience and the occasional, nominal leader could be any class. group dynamics should be decided on a case by case basis and not by the fact that one player decided to play the Caesar class.
sure, some groups may not mind the implied hierarchy and military overtones but as far as I'm concerned, a class concept that requires other PCs to be his "squad" to work is flawed. at least the cleric's teammates don't need to join his faith to benefit from the buffs and healing.

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

to be honest I never really got the Ranger as a class and think the Paladin is redundant unless you make the cleric more priesty and less "holy warrior". so I wouldn't mind them being relegated to multiclass builds but we both know they won't be because they are iconic parts of dnd in a way the Warlord never was.

but my point was really that, as you said yourself, the Warlord wasn't supposed to be an "amazing athlete who's reached the height of prowess at physical combat" like the Fighter and yet most examples that could pass for dnd Warlords are just that (Captain America is "very competent in a fight, among the best", Arthur is a great warrior on his own...) or have otherwise formidable skills on top of leading (Odysseus is a super strong archer and one sneaky bastard, Gandalf is an angelic wizard…)

 

[D'karr]

I'm concerned, a class concept that requires other PCs to be his "squad" to work is flawed. at least the cleric's teammates don't need to join his faith to benefit from his buffs and healing.

A class concept that is viable and acts as a force multiplier as part of a team is, IMO, a very solid class concept. The lone wolf, I can do everything, character concept might be fine, but for a game that has always been designed as a "team" experience it has been much more problematic IME.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Agree that not everything needs to be a class. But like I said before, I have not seen anything within what DDN has shown up to now that looks like a subclass is a better option within their framework.

Within context of released playtest material - good point. I'm hoping they have time to steer the ship away from the proverbial rocks that sunk my enthusiasm for 3E. Namely, LOTS of classes + open multiclassing = ridiculous levels of cherry-picking nonsense that put my players and I on different pages. I want to see a well-designed hybrid of AD&D style multiclassing and modern innovations. All I can comment on is what I'd like to see in the game. I don't believe they've shown us enough to judge what they have as the way things must be.

 

[I'm A Banana]

My other particular issue is I don't understand why removing any class, at all, is necessary. This is supposed to be the all inclusive edition, right? If you're going to refine, then refine. Boil it down to 3 or 4 core classes, then throw in modularity on top. Tons of refinement like PF archetypes, multiple build options, and robust themes and specialties for extra flavor.

If you're going to make narrowly thematic classes, then make them. Barbarian, Assassin, Illusionist, Warlord, Bard, Sorcerer, throw them all in. Why wouldn't you? If you're not giving them a ton of build options (and if you're going narrow, why would you?), classes shouldn't be more than 2 pages each. Stop trying to shoehorn in clerics with 12 domains into the same system as one with rangers and monks. Take an approach and commit.

I'm sympathetic to this, and I honestly wouldn't mind seeing "everything that was ever a class, still is," if only to pre-empt the nerdrage where possible, and to see what interesting things might be in store for a NEXT Assassin or Illusionist.

But I think the reason they're not going this way is because they're committing to a list of distinct kinds of character. The warlord, the assassin, the illusionist, even the sorcerer as it was functionally played -- these filled the same character space as the fighter (who can dang well be a tactical genius), the rogue (who can dang well sneak up behind someone and kill them), the wizard (who can dang well cast an illusion), and, er, the wizard (who has the same spell list, but just casts differently), without as much to distinguish them, mechanically or in play. Playing a Warlord feels like playing a Fighter with some extra encouragement sauce. Playing a sorcerer feels like playing a wizard on a slightly different recharge metric. But playing a barbarian (a wild, untamed character, living on the dangerous edges) and playing a fighter (a disciplined warrior of a character, an elite among her peers who finds her value as an engine of destruction) feel fairly distinct.

But "I give other people bonuses!" or "I have a more limited spell list, and more spells each day!" or "I cast slightly different spells!" isn't an archetype, it's a behavior, or a custom ability list at best.

Honestly, though I feel like there'd be a LOT to gain by going inclusive, by giving each class a potential way to be realized. Especially if everything other than the Core Four are effectively optional anyway.

Either way, though, I'm happy to see inspirational healing as something aside from the character type of a fighter-who-commands.

 

[mlund]

Playing a Warlord feels like playing a Fighter with some extra encouragement sauce.

If we're looking at the 4th Edition PHB playing a Warlord felt like playing a Cleric, without the Divine Magic thing hanging around your neck - oh, and you get to use a Shield. You played nothing like a Fighter - who was designed for a completely different battlefield role and couldn't do jack or squat to enhance the abilities of his allies. Then there's the whole thing with Lazy-lord abilities. The Fighter can't lend his actions to others or perform any sort of teamwork combos.

Once you got into Martial Power the Archer-Warlord opened up an entirely different can of worms too - and he still didn't play anything like a Fighter or a Ranger.

The Warlord is, in general, less of a menace in personal combat then the Fighter - just like the Marshall before him. He is, however, a fantastic force-multiplier.

Nothing in the D&DNext implementation of the Fighter even begins to reflect this character concept, character story, or mechanical ability set.

But playing a barbarian (a wild, untamed character, living on the dangerous edges) and playing a fighter (a disciplined warrior of a character, an elite among her peers who finds her value as an engine of destruction) feel fairly distinct.

Nothing in the Fighter's story requires him to be particularly disciplined. He could be a drunken, violent prodigy of destruction. The "wild and untamed" part of the Barbarian's story is misplaced background. He's a Berserker with semi-offensive cultural stereotypes muddled in for no logical reason.

It's telling that the story the D&DNext Barbarian tells could be emulated by the Fighter in 4th Edition by going Battle Rager or later Slayer. In 3rd Edition you basically just needed to level-dip at any point in your career to do everything the Barbarian did - no "wild and uncivilized" stereotypes needed. Fighter hits things with stick. Angry fighter hits things harder with stick. Rar. Playing a Barbarian feels very much like playing a Slayer-style fighters with some sort of "Savage" background - it's still beating people to death with sticks as fast as you can - whether you wear fur and foam at the mouth or stand stoic in plate mail.

Contrast with a character whose shtick is "force multiplier" like the Warlord.

In the end it may just be that some folks will never accept any Martial characters that contribute in combat by any means other than beating people to death with sticks. That would be a sorry state of affairs, though.

- Marty Lund

 

[I'm A Banana]

In the end it may just be that some folks will never accept any Martial characters that contribute in combat by any means other than beating people to death with sticks. That would be a sorry state of affairs, though.

If that's the position you think I hold, I haven't been very clear.

If that's the position you think the NEXT dev team holds, you missed the bit where they explicitly called out maneuvers that let you enhance what your allies do.

The issue isn't "there can be no force multipliers in the game!", the issue is, "do force multipliers require a separate class, or can it be the a thing that the fighter class could be good at?"

Is the archetype of "dude who commands his buddies in combat" a subset of "guy who is awesome at combat," or its own thing?

 

[Ratskinner]

Nothing in the Fighter's story requires him to be particularly disciplined. He could be a drunken, violent prodigy of destruction. The "wild and untamed" part of the Barbarian's story is misplaced background. He's a Berserker with semi-offensive cultural stereotypes muddled in for no logical reason.

I think the "Berserker" part might need to be a class. Rage mechanics with the rest of a fighter's maneuvers might get wonky. "Barbarian" though, should be a Background. (You could even have multiple BGs with variation to represent different tribes/locations.) To be honest, though, I wouldn't miss rage at all. Shuttle it off to a prestige class or something for folks of suitable background.

In the end it may just be that some folks will never accept any Martial characters that contribute in combat by any means other than beating people to death with sticks. That would be a sorry state of affairs, though.

That could explain why nobody is taking that position.

 

[mlund]

If that's the position you think I hold, I haven't been very clear.

No, while you were the only poster I quoted to start out with my post, I do understand.

In general, I'm of a sympathetic mind-set of big-tent classes and sub-classes than DNDNext is turning out.

The issue isn't "there can be no force multipliers in the game!", the issue is, "do force multipliers require a separate class, or can it be the a thing that the fighter class could be good at?"

It really depends on how much people are willing to extend the Fighter class. Some people are completely intolerant of Fighters that deviate from the OD&D -> PF paradigm of fighter-as-fodder, demand a game that has class-itis, or will nit-pick every non-magical effect in a system to death.

Is the archetype of "dude who commands his buddies in combat" a subset of "guy who is awesome at combat," or its own thing?

In D&DNext the Successful Player Character is the archetype of "guy who is awesome at combat." Whether you set people on fire, perform miracle healing, jump down from the ceiling and disembowel someone, or split them like cord-wood you're awesome in a fight.

The question is what kind of subset is the Fighter? To some people the Fighter must (no matter if they are the one playing the Fighter or the one playing another character at the same table with a Fighter) be the big-dumb-jock who has heavy armor, big weapons, and deals in nothing but hit points or it's BadWrongFun and "Not Real D&D."

The Fighter should be the master of arms, the best at any sort of direct application of weapons - bows, swords, axes, hammers, fists, lances, spears, fists, whatever. He must have access to all forms of armor and shields as well as a lot of hit-points to endure a prolonged or especially heated melee.

Should the Warlord be a Warrior? Yes.
Must the Warlord be the ultimate master of arms? No.
Must the Warlord be the hardiest and stoutest on the field? No.

Therefore, a Warlord need not be a Fighter any more than a Monk or a Barbarian need be.

I think the "Berserker" part might need to be a class. Rage mechanics with the rest of a fighter's maneuvers might get wonky. "Barbarian" though, should be a Background. (You could even have multiple BGs with variation to represent different tribes/locations.) To be honest, though, I wouldn't miss rage at all. Shuttle it off to a prestige class or something for folks of suitable background.

Pretty much. Berserker is just a particular suite of maneuvers that are all about engaging in a more reckless, high-impact form of combat.

That could explain why nobody is taking that position.

Few people admit to the position explicitly. They just take a particular bent of argument to establish the position consequentially. Instead they'll talk about how it's "not D&D," "complicates a simple class," or nit-pick every mechanic to death with arguments over it being "too game-ist," "not realistic," or "needs to allow a saving throw," and thus be crippled to the point of uselessness.

- Marty Lund