D&D 5E D&D podcast!

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Bringing the thought process further on four base classes...

They could even build the three pillars into archetype choice. Choose Fighter, choose an archery combat pillar archetype, choose a wilderness warrior exploration pillar archetype, and choose a grizzled survivalist social pillar. Now you have your "Ranger." Build base classes that provide the general ways of how the character performs its role, then add the three pillars to define the means by which he goes about his adventuring life.

It makes sense to me from a design perspective too. A strong focus on 20+ levels of each of 4 base classes. Then each pillar archetype would build on that strong base and not require another design exercise of coming up with another 20+ levels for each slight variation.

Edit: If I'm using archetye incorrectly, please read around it and I think it still represents the point I'm trying to make.

 

[Gorgoroth]

All this talk about archetypes just makes me want to play Pathfinder!! They might not all been worth taking, but they cover most of the major options you could want. Too bad a lot of their implementations suck or are broken. But the framework Pathfinder came up with was great. You can pick a class+archetype that very closely matches what you want then you don't need to multiclass into twisted combinations to get there.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I feel like the heart of the matter is: "Is the Warlord archetype -- their story -- distinct from the Bard or the Fighter or a Bardy Fighter or a Fightery Bard? If fighters are potentially tactical maestros and bards are potentially inspiring leaders, what does a Warlord contribute that is unique?"

Barbarians and monks are pretty distinct in the story. You could smash them into a fighter, but it would make a very broad fighter.

But the guy who is good at tactical maneuvering? Or the guy who spurs his allies on? Why ISN'T that a fighter? What about the fighter's story as a master of combat and battle doesn't include that? What about the bard's story as a charismatic, inspirational persuader doesn't include that?

What, essentially, is unique to the Warlord that isn't represented already by one of the other classes?

I mean, if poison use and better weapon proficiencies and assassination attacks aren't enough to distinguish an Assassin from a Rogue, what is different about a Warlord compared to a Fighter?

 

[TwoSix]

I would say there's 4 solid archetypes for the Warlord that need to be supported.

The Tactical Genius.
The "So crazy it could work" Genius.
The Inspirational Figurehead.
The Princess.

Basically, a way to leverage Intelligence and Charisma in a non-magical way to enhance your allies' effectiveness. I don't think it has to be just Fighter, I could see the Princess and Crazy Genius being rolled into Rogue, for example.

 

[Sage Genesis]

I feel like the heart of the matter is: "Is the Warlord archetype -- their story -- distinct from the Bard or the Fighter or a Bardy Fighter or a Fightery Bard? If fighters are potentially tactical maestros and bards are potentially inspiring leaders, what does a Warlord contribute that is unique?"

Barbarians and monks are pretty distinct in the story. You could smash them into a fighter, but it would make a very broad fighter.

But the guy who is good at tactical maneuvering? Or the guy who spurs his allies on? Why ISN'T that a fighter? What about the fighter's story as a master of combat and battle doesn't include that? What about the bard's story as a charismatic, inspirational persuader doesn't include that?

What, essentially, is unique to the Warlord that isn't represented already by one of the other classes?

I mean, if poison use and better weapon proficiencies and assassination attacks aren't enough to distinguish an Assassin from a Rogue, what is different about a Warlord compared to a Fighter?

As always, by this logic D&D should have only two or three classes.

What is unique about the Paladin that isn't represented by the Cleric or the Fighter? For that matter, what is unique about the Cleric that wouldn't be represented by a multiclass Fighter/Wizard who talks about god a lot? What makes the Ranger and the Monk deserving to be classes of their own, rather than Fighter/Rogue combos with some focus on woodland skills or feats spent on unarmed combat? For some reason you object to smashing the Barbarian (ie. the "angry fighter") into the Fighter because that would make it too broad, but smashing a healer into the Fighter is a-ok. That strikes me as an odd double standard.

Furthermore, to actually answer some of your questions, the difference between a Warlord and a Bard is that one of them is a spellcaster and the other isn't. The Bard has never been a non-magical healer. That's not just a semantical issue, it's a statement about how the game world works. For many people, the Warlord is a favorite precisely because it takes D&D's presumptions about healing into a direction that they want it to.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I find it a bit naive for people to believe that a game whose primary focus is going back to how things were in previous editions while removing everything that was innovative, unique, and wonderful about 4E is going to appeal to the 4E community to any significant degree.

 

[TwoSix]

I find it a bit naive for people to believe that a game whose primary focus is going back to how things were in previous editions while removing everything that was innovative, unique, and wonderful about 4E is going to appeal to the 4E community to any significant degree.

Part of the appeal of 4e was the degree to which it embraced being innovative while staying within known D&D tropes. I'd have a much higher opinion of Next if it simply also tried to be innovative, even if it moved away from 4e-isms. The high point of the playtest for me was the Sorcerer packet, because that was actually something new and different.

 

[I'm A Banana]

As always, by this logic D&D should have only two or three classes.

What is unique about the Paladin that isn't represented by the Cleric or the Fighter?

Mechanically: Smites, special mounts, weapon/armor training.

Thematically: Paladins are chivalrous crusading knights, an elite cadre of noble bearing. Clerics are servants of the gods, ministers and healers and holy sages.

A paladin is more than just a cleric with a sword. A cleric is more than just a paladin without a horse.

For that matter, what is unique about the Cleric that wouldn't be represented by a multiclass Fighter/Wizard who talks about god a lot?

Mechanically: weapon/armor skill, different spell effects.

Thematically: Clerics are given blessings by their deities to work the gods' will in the mortal world, wizards wrest secret power from the very core of reality and twist the world to their desires, fighters are masters of combat and battle whose skill in slaying their adversaries in unmatched.

Clerics are more than fighters-who-also-cast-spells. Wizards are more than spellcasting mechanics. Fighters are more than the ability to use heavy armor.

What makes the Ranger and the Monk deserving to be classes of their own, rather than Fighter/Rogue combos with some focus on woodland skills or feats spent on unarmed combat?

Mechanically: ki, TWF/archery focus, animal companions, pseudo-mystical powers like disease immunity, nature magic.

Thematically: Monks train their bodies and minds for enlightenment and self-actualization, not for combat and war. Rangers are not defined by battle and combat, they are defined by their role as inhabitants and guardians of the wilderness.

Monks are more than just unarmed attacks. Rangers are more than just flurries of scimitars. Fighters are more than just weapon proficiencies and a high attack bonus.

For some reason you object to smashing the Barbarian (ie. the "angry fighter") into the Fighter because that would make it too broad, but smashing a healer into the Fighter is a-ok. That strikes me as an odd double standard.

Mechanically: Rage, speed, sheer bloody toughness.

Thematically: Barbarians are defined by their self-sufficiency and their uncivilized origins, tapping into a character with an alien mindset. Fighters are defined by combat and war, tapping into a character of determined toughness and superb combat competence.

Barbarians are more than just "angry." Fighters are more than just high HPs and a big weapon.

Furthermore, to actually answer some of your questions, the difference between a Warlord and a Bard is that one of them is a spellcaster and the other isn't.

Debatable. And academic, especially coming from 4e where the difference between "it's magic" and "it's not" is a keyword or two.

The Bard has never been a non-magical healer. That's not just a semantical issue, it's a statement about how the game world works. For many people, the Warlord is a favorite precisely because it takes D&D's presumptions about healing into a direction that they want it to.

Non-magical healing doesn't need to be linked to any particular class. If that's a thing you want, there's no reason that it needs to be tethered to the Warlord.

Part of the appeal of 4e was the degree to which it embraced being innovative while staying within known D&D tropes. I'd have a much higher opinion of Next if it simply also tried to be innovative, even if it moved away from 4e-isms. The high point of the playtest for me was the Sorcerer packet, because that was actually something new and different.

I wonder if part of what they learned from that is that the D&D crowd is actually quite conservative about their game -- that the target audience actually doesn't want drastic changes and new hotness just for the sake of there being new hotness. Dwarf fighters and elf wizards never go out of style, right?

I imagine the innovations may be more likely to occur in distinct, self-contained packages that don't so much worry about turning D&D as a whole into some designer's fantasy heartbreaker as much as give you new stuff to do, if you want it, or you can ignore it if you're that guy who has been playing the same dwarf fighter for 30 years and is quite happy there, thankyouverymuch.

 

[TwoSix]

If you're going to make the argument that Ranger, Monk, etc. are thematically "stronger" than Warlord, KM, you probably could just say that.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

The Warlord as a full class is in many ways very similar to the Illusionist being a full class, except that I haven't seen a lot of 1e fans make an outcry about how the Illusionist isn't a full class. I don't have any affection for the Illusionist as a class probably because I started in 2e. And I personally think it's best they try for the full classes as defined by 3e (with the addition of Warlock which had 4e as the 1 edition where they appeared in the first PHB). The thing about the Warlord is that never was about the healing as it's main thing, which is something I felt they just tacked on when trying to define classes by roles, it was always about battlefield tactics (as I seem to remember the Warlord being the worst healer of the leader classes).

I feel there's more justifications for why Barbarians, Rangers and Paladins should be separate classes, because in many ways they are sort of hybrids. Paladin being sort of a fighter/cleric and Ranger being sort of a fighter/druid. Also the Barbarian is good for absorbing the interesting but considerably less popular Warden class, and the Ranger could absorb the really unpopular Seeker class.

It's certainly my biases about edition, but I feel the archetypes of:
Ranger - A warrior versed with the secret knowledge of the wilds.
Paladin - A holy warrior of empowered by the force of an ideal.
Barbarian - A warrior driven by the totem spirits.

could stand more on their own, than Warlord - A warrior trained in the arts of tactics and command. Mainly because it's harder to have fighter maneuvers cover things like spirit knowledge and divine blessings.