Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6099511" data-attributes="member: 42582">A bard is a scholar, a musician, a poet. In D&D, also a magician. I don't find the skald that comparable either, for similar reasons. When I think of a skald I think of Odin hanging himself to learn laws and runes which he then carves on his world-ordering staff. This is cool stuff, but doesn't shout "warlord" to me.A warlord is either a warrior of some form, or (in the Princess build) a device for redirecting metagame benefits.(I'd add on a side note - rather than merging warlord and bard, I would find merging wizard and bard less thematically wrenching.)I don't follow this. I don't think 4e bards play much like 4e warlords, partly because the former are magicians (and speak evil charms, use rituals etc) whereas the latter don't use magic. It's not just about "a keyword or two" - it's about the whole slew of effects (which, yes, are built using keywords - but the difference between a cathedral and a castle isn't just "a stone or two".)I think Aragorn and King Arthur are candidates (this also shows that in some ways the warlord and paladin overlap).I think Odysseus is another good candidate. And Faramir (especially as portrayed in the movie). And these guys don't have the paladin overlap going on.Sure. But what does the AD&D ranger add to the fighter? Stealth, tracking, an awesome hit point bonus, an awesome damage bonus, and Palantir use. Let's treat the latter as a feat, the stealth and tracking as skills/background, and the hit point and damage bonus as broken. What's left? (The spells, I guess, once you get to 8th level. And the copper dragon once you reach 10th. They're hardly class-defining, though the dragon is pretty broken too.)But in Tolkien, as opposed to Gygax, what is in fact key to Aragorn is his ability to inspire, to lead, to bring hope (and victory) where there was none. In D&D terms that's leveraging CHA. Which is to say, is squarely in warlord territory.I didn't have a class for Odysseus or Faramir. As I noted, Aragorn or King Arthur would be a paladin. Mechanically, the 4e warlord is a better fit, I think, at least for Aragorn.(I also gather Tanis Half-Elven probably works better as a warlord than a ranger or fighter, but I don't know that character as well.)The archetypal fantasy barbarian is Conan. Who is also the archetypal sword and sorcery warrior. I find the notion that the barbarian is "a distinct kind of character" but the warlord is not pretty stretched.Your device for proving that these character - monks, rangers, paladins etc - aren't fighter variants seems to turn on finding a phrase to describe them that doesn't involve combat (which for paladins is frankly bizarre, by the way - I'll put up five bucks here and now that the Next class info on paladins will describe them as "holy warriors" and/or "knights", both of which are combatant descriptors). But anyway, for warlords their non-combat-worded "schtick" would be "Bringing hope to the hearts of their allies through wit, guile and empathy."I'm sure that this is pretty accurate as to their reasoning process. It's pretty clear that they're not that keen on the metagame mechanics that characterise 4e, and especially many 4e warlords.</blockquote>

Verification