D&D 5E D&D podcast!

[Gorgoroth]

To play devil's advocate here (Mearls's side), that might be the best reason it shouldn't be a class. It goes back to the "story not rules" thing. That warlord build is purely a mechanical novelty: "isn't it cool how I have these mechanics that let me do stuff, even though my character isn't technically doing anything?"

Mike's argument is that the character has to have a place in the imagined world, and then the mechanics should be built to represent that (and remember, tactical grid combat is not assumed in D&DN, so it can't be super-precise forced movement and whatnot). When your lazylord is standing 30 feet from the battle and using powers that give his allies extra attacks, what is the character actually doing?

To be fair, I can picture it like a boxing coach giving realtime instructions, or an arena slave master telling his star gladiator on the field way below to Execute Special Move #66. That's not unbelievable, and I'd like warlord to be a class in DDN to have some variety. But, if the mechanics that can achieve that can be shoehorned into the maneuver system that's grantable via feats to other classes, then by all means. I do think a fighter-based warlord would be better at dispensing real-time fighting tips to his allies than a wizard would, but the wizard could easily have other, different types of maneuvers. I'd say at low levels it should really be a matter of costing an action to bark out those orders/tips, and later on you can both fight/cast spells and do some of those other things in the same round (e.g. other than the ones based on reactions). E.g. what if Reorient the Axis DDN version allows the warlord to dispense the PCs with their move action immediately rather than later, so they can all act as a whole. It's nowhere near as useful if he doesn't still have his action left, e.g. blow up the orcs left standing dumbfounded in the open with the pcs all safely ducked out of the way of the fireball. That requires some mechanical support to achieve, other than "story" (e.g. just call out to the other PCs and tell 'em to move out of the way...they can't do their move action on your turn normally).

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

To play devil's advocate here (Mearls's side), that might be the best reason it shouldn't be a class. It goes back to the "story not rules" thing. That warlord build is purely a mechanical novelty: "isn't it cool how I have these mechanics that let me do stuff, even though my character isn't technically doing anything?"

Fair enough, and more power to them; I guess they're building a game I won't run then. So much for "inclusivity" and the "big tent" approach.

Mike's argument is that the character has to have a place in the imagined world, and then the mechanics should be built to represent that (and remember, tactical grid combat is not assumed in D&DN, so it can't be super-precise forced movement and whatnot). When your lazylord is standing 30 feet from the battle and using powers that give his allies extra attacks, what is the character actually doing?

I think his argument is flawed, and others have pointed out a plethora of reasons why that is. I think they do have a place in the imagined game world outside of being a type of Fighter, just like Barbs, Pallys, Monks, Rogues, and Rangers. This includes Warlords both as military trained commanders, and as mechanics to hang an adventuring princess off of.

 

[Manbearcat]

Quadruple post yay!

 

[Manbearcat]

Quadruple post yay!

 

[Manbearcat]

Quadruple post yay!

 

[Manbearcat]

Quadruple post yay!

 

[Manbearcat]

The existence of a duelist build for the Fighter already invalidates that. No D&D fighter (even in 4e!) was the Errol Flynn type, and clearly the NEXT fighter is being built to accommodate that type as well.

Yes, they want to serve the legacy of a simple fighter. No, that's not the limit of what they want to do with the thing -- just a starting point.

That isn't true at all. The PC build resources were there to build a duelist/swashbuckler guy off the Fighter chassis in AD&D 2e with the Combat and Tactics Book. They had a 1-handed fighting style weapon proficiency, they had Tumbling and increased Reactions, and they had NWPs that rounded you out to the end of flamboyant swashbuckler/duelist. They also had the 2-weapon style for rapier and main gauche if you wanted to go that route. You could easily build one. The same thing clearly applies with 3.x and the various expertise/dodge/mobility/spring attack/weapon finesse etc.

You could build one in both of those editions and they were fully supported through the Fighter. However, just like in 5e, they weren't as mechanically potent as the other available builds. Next is accommodating nothing new here.

That's not entirely true, and I've already spent a LOT of words on how this difference divides, but it hinges on the fact that rangers, paladins, and barbarians define themselves by things other than fighting, while a Warlord does not.

I've read all of those words. I just happen to disagree with them completely and don't find that you're applying the logic universally. At all. Every single one of those classes (moreso than the Warlord) works off of the basic Fighter chassis and they all primarily combatants with a few bells and whistles. Out of all of them, the Paladin is the most thematically focused/robust. Nonetheless, if you're forced to, you could still shoehorn him with the same system. You could do so if you didn't care about diluting his thematic depth and the potency/breadth of his resources (same applies to the Warlord...except again, he isn't fundamentally working off of the Fighter chassis).

Rangers can easily be created off of the Fighter chassis with a Woodsman (Athletics, Perception, Nature, Stealth and some fluffy wilderness ability) Background and feats that support Animal Friendship, Favored Enemy/Terrain, Combat Style.

Barbarian can easily be created off of the Fighter chassis with a Wildman/Hordelands (Athletics, Intimidate, Nature, Endurance and some fluffy tribal ability) Background and feats that support Rage, Grit/DR, Speed with light/no armor.

Paladin can easily be created off of the Fighter chassis with the Priest (4 skills and fluff ability as per playtest) Background and feats that support Holy Smite, Lay on Hands, Holy Steed.

If you're good with that, then you can sell me on the Warlord being easily created off of the Fighter chassis with a Field Marshal (Athletics, Diplomacy, Insight, Intimidate and some fluffy "chain of command" ability) and feats that support ally bonuses to Insight/Perception/Initiative, improve allies action economy and damage/pull them out of danger, and invigorate/heal them with inspiration, etc.

The Fighter isn't being designed to be an UR-class for every weapon-wielding martial combatant, it's being designed to fill the role of "Fantasy Warrior Combat Guy." Which isn't the same as "Noble chivalric knight guy," and isn't the same as "Untamed savage brute guy" and isn't the same as "Woodwise independent hunting guy."

I agree it isn't the same. Its a generic chassis that lets you build all manner of primarily Martial "Fighting guys" off of them with extra source stuff through other PC build resources. If you're ok with diluting one classes thematic potency and reducing the potency/breadth of his tactically deployable resources, then there is no reason to not treat all "Fighting guys" the same, assuming that you can "functionally" recreate them. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

The "genre implications" and "thematic content" (which are really ambiguous and open-ended phrases) can be served in ways other than a class.

I foresaw that incredulity. We cross posted as I broke those out about 3 minutes before you posted your response. See the post directly above your response.

I agree that the "thematic content" that rounds out the robustness of classes can be served in ways other than class (see above for Ranger, Barbarian, Warlord). It just doesn't do it perfectly well if it dilutes that content and is less robust than other renderings of those classes deployable resources...which is the case...which is why each of those need a class. Not merely legacy reasons. If their Feat system was robust enough (carried the heft of Class Features), then it could. But it doesn't.

Considering the fact that a lot of us don't like combat-as-sport to the extant 4e brought to us I would much rather have the combat as sport mentality (I.e tactical combat) in a rules module and I wouldn't really want to have my favorite archetype locked into a style of play that frankly I don't really enjoy that often.

I hope you understand that I don't disagree that "a lot of us - you - don't like combat-as-sport". That was actually my point. They are deferring to you. As such, through that deference, they are inhibiting the actualization of the orthogonal playstyle (combat-as-sport)...while somehow maintaining the untenable "big tent" position. And then ultimately stating that the Warlord/Marshal doesn't make the cut...while making an absurd offhand quip about Warlord healing inspiring a hand back on (which would basically be edition warring on this board)...while somehow missing the fact that they've constructed a HD system that lets you grow that same hand back overnight. I mean what an extraordinary gaffe.

You're not disputing my point here. You're agreeing with it. Emphatically. They are deferring to your style of play and the genre conceit of NO SCREAM HEALING OK. Willfully (with some mockery, incoherent mockery at that, in the latest podcast to boot). And crowding out the playstyle of others. While somehow maintaining the "big tent" marketing mission statement. Yup.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think we all see WotC's reasoning behind keeping the Ranger, Paladin, Barbarian, and Monk classes as having much more to do with 'legacy' than any sort of real 'thematic need' when compared to a Warlord. Are you really arguing any of those classes couldn't be folded into the "Fighting Man" with appropriate specialties, feats, and weapon choices?

I feel like this is actually a misunderstanding of what I think WotC is intending "class" to mean in NEXT (which isn't the same as what it meant in 4e, and not even quite the same as what it meant in 3e), because I don't think it's about legacy (or else why chop Assassins, Illusionists, and potentially Sorcerers and Warlocks as unique classes?), and I don't think it's about an inclusive or exclusive angle, either -- it's not about trying to reduce the number of classes or increase the number of classes.

It is about defining what your character is about.

So, you can't make classes very generic -- not everyone who hits things is going to be a Fighter, because then the word doesn't effectively speak to how your character acts. It becomes more of an organizational thing. Which is fine, but not the most effective at defining your character: your "fighter" could be about anything!

You also can't make classes very specific -- hitting things with bows and hitting things with light weapons and hitting things with two-handed weapons don't need to all be different classes, because then it becomes too limiting. My paladin can't use a bow well because that's not what paladins do, that's what rangers do. My fighter can't sneak very well because that's not what fighters do, that's what rogues do. That is also fine, but it isn't the most effective at defining what your character is about: your definition is narrow and exclusionary and sometimes distinctly arbitrary.

Fighters, as WotC has conceived of them in NEXT, are about combat. They think about swords, they eat off of shields, they breathe clouds of arrows, they mull tactical approaches over in their dreams, they know an encyclopedia of flourishes and feints, they aren't afraid to get hit, they know where to plant their feet, and they view getting pointy things thrust at them as a lifestyle choice that they are comfortable with.

Barbarians, monks, paladins, rangers, even rogues -- these guys are not about combat. They might be fine for fighting, but that's not what they eat and breathe and live and absorb into their very being. War is not their be-all and end-all. They do not have intimate familiarity with the history and technology of killin' things. They are not defined by combat, they are not entrenched in the way of the warrior. They've got other paths to follow.

In fact, that might be a useful metaphor: a path. A way. A trail. That's your class -- a journey to a destination. Or, perhaps, a set of tools -- your class is a thing you use to accomplish your adventuring tasks.

In that view, the warlord and the fighter go by the same path, side by side. They both use the same tool -- combat. They travel next to each other. They are both about fighting. They define themselves by attacks, defenses, strategems, tactics, gambits, damage, and protection.

To separate out "I am about combat as it involves aiding and abetting my allies" and "I am about combat as it involves doing things other than that!" is a distinction that leans to the narrow and arbitrary.

That's different than separating out "I am about combat!" and "I am about self-perfecting enlightenment!", or "I am about combat" and "I am about the dangerous loss of control and freedom unfettered by society!", or "I am about combat!" and "I am about metaphysical justice and retribution!", or "I am about combat!" and "I am about an intimate knowledge of the wilderness and its inhabitants, the liminal space between the world and your village."

Look at the other candidates to roll into other classes: Assassins, Sorcerers, Warlocks, Illusionists...they're all very close to the same paths that other classes walk (rogues and wizards). If you're designing a game that treats the concept of a class as a way to help define what path your character walks, those are all paths that are pretty much the same.

I also think it's key to point out that not all classes are or should be created with the same flexibility in mind. The Core Four probably need to be very flexible. The optional classes less so.

I don't think Fighter is the best chassis to necessarily carry the Warlord concept.

Okay, but so far, no one has been very effective at explaining to me why this is, other than "I like it that way."

"Fighters can't do what warlords can do!" is just a circular argument, which is why my reply was "Sure they could." It's like saying "rogues can't do what assassins can do!" Anyone could do what warlords can do. Rogues could do what warlords can do. Wizards could do what warlords can do. Ninjas could do what warlords can do. Goblins could do what warlords can do.

The relevant question in my mind is, "What should do what warlords can do?" Given that they walk the same path and use the same tools as a fighter (Combat), I don't see a solid reason why it shouldn't be a fighter.

I mean, I don't see two threads a week from 3e fans decrying how the game is losing something deeply essential because the Sorcerer might be rolled into the magic-using class as a tradition, or from 1e fans about how the Assassin and the Rogue are nothing alike. What do we think we're losing when we can't call our character who can enable and magnify ally actions, who wears chainmail and wields a bow or a spear, who even gives HP back by inspiring allies, and who favors Int and Cha a "Warlord" on the character sheet and be in line with the RAW, but must instead call it a "Fighter"?

Because I don't think we're talking about completely getting rid of anything that a warlord in 4e can do from the game (though some things, like inspirational healing, make better modules than core rules). We're just talking about maybe not making it a distinct character class.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

KM, I could go into a ton of detail, but somehow I don't think it would get us anywhere. Let me summarize my position as that I don't think yours (and WotC's position, insomuch as it follows yours) is intellectually consistent. Rather, it's a bunch of sleight of hand to keep people from focusing on the inconsistency. Now, I'm not saying that you don't believe your stuff or are being dishonest. I'm sure you really do see things this way.

About the only part that I think has some real heft to it is that "warlord" is a terrible name, and brings up all kinds of archetypical images that are contrary to what a 4E warlord actually does. If someone wanted to make a case for the warlord mechanical stuff being married to the fighter archetype, I'd be interested. But then that brings us back to those that can't stand the thought of the fighter as, mechanically, anything but guy with pointy stick beating on stuff--and yet more inconsistency. This is because the mechanical/archetypical image associated with the traditional D&D play that comes out of this mindset sucks as a useful tool in game design.

 

[Argyle King]

I wouldn't have a problem with a fighter style that picked up warlordy abilities. However, the traditional problem with trying to play a smart or a charismatic fighter in D&D has been the way that levels and stats scale. Often, you cannot afford to place points into abilities which aren't geared toward stabbing stuff. Doing so too often hurts your ability to contribute to an encounter at the level which the game assumes you should be able to perform.

It may very well be that 5th Edition's set up has a way to fix that, but I am not currently convinced when I look at the current stage of the product.

Also, I still feel that the warlord deserves to be a class just as much as a paladin. Why is a charismatic or tactically savvy fighter any different from a fighter who has religious powers or different from a fighter who multiclasses into cleric? For the record, it's my understanding that paladin hasn't always been a class in the strictest sense of the word; I'm lead to believe that it at one time was something more akin to a prestige class.

Likewise, I still also believe there's a world of difference between the physical aspects of war and the mental aspects. I would never suggest that a fighter cannot learn some of what a warlord can do; only that warlord is a specialist in a certain area. That's no different than saying a fighter or a rogue or a wizard is a specialist in a certain area. Certainly, fighter and warlord are going to share some space and have some overlap, but they also have areas of expertise which I feel are distinct enough to warrant a different class. If a fighter wants to become more like a warlord, he can multiclass much in the same way that a warlord might multiclass into fighter if he wants to become a stronger in the ways of combat.

All of that being said, I'm not opposed to warlord being a theme or a specialty of some sort. I wish the idea had been used more, and used more in the manner presented in the first playtest. However, when looking at today's product (or what is said to be the current state of 5th Edition,) it seems classes have come full circle back to something which more strongly resembles classes in previous editions. As such, I feel warlord should be a class in a game where paladin is also a class.