D&D 5E (2014) D&D podcast!

[TwoSix]

Double post combo!

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

One of the problems with the current fighter is that fighting styles are just suggested builds. They don't come with any mechanics like the other classes get. Essentially, the fighter has been too narrowly defined compared to the cleric, wizard, an rogue.

Merging in some other classes makes sense. I don't believe that having some reductionism requires absolute reductionism. But the warlord is a good fit. So are the Ranger and Paladin, at least until you add magic. Regardless, a combination of the Fighter and Warlord makes for a very compelling class with a broader set of options than either class alone.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

Woops. Multiple posts.

 

[TwoSix]

Triple post!

C-C-Combo breaker!

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

Woops. Multiple posts.

 

[D'karr]

Oh, and if Mearls had told me that I couldn't shout a hand back on, I'd have asked him if he thought it was possible to rest it back.

Yeah, that was by far the most asinine comment/question of the podcast. Are they going to include actual wound charts to cover hand amputation too. HP have never modeled that type of injury, ever. That justification was lame-o.

 

[Obryn]

Damage and HP and such is fairly easy to change, we should see the math tweaks in the next packet iirc from the podcast, and we have seen several healing mechanics in the packets from day one, some of them are clearly intended to be optional/part of a rule module.

Kinda-sorta. What's important is that you (1) have a baseline established so you can create the ... everything else in the system ... around it. Then you can (2) show modular adjustments, with guidance on how it will change your game.

I agree that it should be easy to change. I disagree that this implies that it isn't fundamental. It touches on spellcasting, combat, traps, out-of-combat healing, class features, weapons, feats, and so on. It's a central, core mechanic in one of the truest senses of the word for a game like D&D.

Looking at the current fighter I don't see how you can fit a paladin into it without reverting to a bastardized classless system, I'm guessing that if there weren't fighter menuveres than we would have seen the warlord as a dedicated class but considering the fact that mechanicly the warlord is just a fighter with a distinct set of menuveres I don't see why it should get a superset class... IMHO.

Warder
P.s I played a warlord for two years and I can clearly picture how I can build him back in DnDNext.

I'm glad that you think it's sufficient to make it a Fighter; it's good to see that some folks are liking the direction.

I, however, disagree. I think the Warlord is just as thematically distinct as the Paladin, Ranger, and Barbarian. I don't consider Sun Tzu or Julius Caesar to be primarily Fighters. To me, Fighters should be amazing athletes who've reached the height of prowess at physical combat, using tools, armor, equipment, training, and their physical skills to their advantage. So, Beowulf? Fighter. Napoleon? Warlord.

Should it be possible for a Fighter to easily mulitclass to a Warlord? Absolutely! But it's a distinct niche and deserving a class of its own.

-O

 

[JamesonCourage]

Read the thread, didn't listen to the podcast.

Throwing in my opinion that Warlord should be its own class, and that "the core four" is not what I want to see replacing everything else. As always, play what you like

 

[Raith5]

Ratskinner I think is because some discrete mechanisms look strange out of the overall context. I think the whole concern about hit dice as healing surges is because they are very limited, lack an in combat role, cant be triggered by healing magic, are not proportional healing, things which in healing surges, when taken together. create an overall experience/style in 4th ed.

 

[Libramarian]

I think the Warlord mechanics would work better with a Skald class concept.

Actually not just the mechanics but the actual fluff of martial-oriented semi-magical shouting.