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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ratskinner" data-source="post: 6099656" data-attributes="member: 6688937">::sigh::Kinda totally missing my point....this is what Confirmation Bias looks like up close.More to the point there is still NOTHING in any of that to help actually decide whether Warlord needs to be separate class or not. Maybe I can make my point another way...Imagine that there was no 4e "Warlord" class. Instead, everything about the 4e Warlord, all his powers etc. were in the Fighter class. You could still play the same character, but he would be a fighter, not a Warlord. Now, in 4e, there's a good reason not to have done this. The fighter class would be huge and diluted compared to the other classes. Plus, it would muck with the whole "roles" thing. (I'm sure there are other reasons, as well, but anyway...) In proto-5e we don't have those problems (as of yet). Narratively, there's no way to distinguish between any edition's class-spectrum.* That is, you can "cast" the characters from most fantasy works using the class-spectrum of any edition. The choice of which edition's class-spectrum you use is arbitrary. Certainly you wouldn't make the argument "You just couldn't do LotR properly with D&D until 4e came out, because Aragon just doesn't work as anything less than a 4e Warlord." (at least I hope not.<img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/erm.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":erm:" title="Erm    :erm:" data-shortname=":erm:" />) Certainly you can't argue that Tolkien had 4e warlords in mind when he was writing the thing. 4e fans are looking at things through a 4e lens and seeing Warlords everywhere there is a reasonably charismatic figure.Literary characters are based off of archetypes that are far more vague and sloppy than D&D classes. There really isn't much justification from source for an archetype of  Warlord that is clearly distinct from the giant fuzzy cloud which is the heroic warrior (not on the  level of Wizard-Warrior, anyway.) If that justification were there, "Warlord" would be one of the Core 5. (As it is, Core 4 might be too many...) Thus, the argument for a Warlord-as-class must happen on mechanical grounds. As of yet, I don't think there's justification for it in proto-5e. 5e, so far, is running lightweight enough that you won't need 120 maneuvers to represent them. Maneuvers aren't using abilityscores, so you don't need to worry about MAD. Maneuvers also seem like a likely mechanic for conveying the kind of thing a 4e-Warlord does. All this leads me to see the idea of Warlord as a set of Fighter maneuvers as perfectly reasonable. Could that change? Sure. If the list of fighter maneuvers starts to get too big....start splitting them off. Some are arguing for a more rogue/cleric approach to the Warlord...that might work as well. If you want to hold off "Warlordy" characters until Standard or Advanced...there's any number of reasons.*Some early editions don't do all of their distinguishing explicitly in the mechanics...so two 1e fighters might look mechanically identical, but be played very differently. Also in that vein, BECMI is rather limited in character types covered, unless you view things far more abstractly than is typcially done.</blockquote>

Verification