Mike Mearls comments on design

[rounser]

So the name of the warlord class doesn't matter one damn bit.

And that's where we end the reasoned debate for this thread. Tune in next post when our posters try and argue that the numbers behind the names are the only thing that matters, and that D&D is equivalent to suduko.

Keep smiling and bye for now.

 

[Daniel D. Fox]

A rose by any other name...

 

[Hussar]

It's a terrible fit. An adventuring party is not an army, not a military organisation, not a nation, and doesn't "declare war". It simply doesn't fit. The idea of PCs sitting around a tavern table saying they "need a new warlord" is comical.

I realize you did mention it later, but, do you have the same problem with paladin? I mean, paladin has nothing to do with a holy warrior. Nor is a paladin a 1st level character. It's also solidly grounded in a VERY specific historical period.

Except, and this is the point I've been hammering on for a while, D&D has defined paladins for itself. Paladin=holy warrior in D&D. I can make a lightly armored, feathered, tatooed, handaxe wielding paladin and no one would bat an eye, despite the fact that what I've created is NOT a paladin of history. But, it's a perfectly acceptable (if perhaps underpowered) D&D paladin.

I can make a druid focused on Underdark creatures, without any ties to trees and that's perfectly acceptable. The only connection between D&D druids and real world druids is the name. There really aren't any other similarities. Merlin as druid? Sure, if you're up on your Romance Literature. Most people usually peg Merlin as a wizard. Merlin's the archetypal wizard for most people.

There's absolutely no difference with the flavour being presented here. It will be defined by use within the game. Any real world connections will be sent to the background because people won't want those connotations in their game. Warlords will mean "Leader type that fights better than a cleric". Golden Wyvern will simply mean "Type of magic that controls area of effect spells" with the Adept tacked onto the end for those who take the feat.

One of the best selling versions of the game - Basic/Expert locked in flavour tight with the rules. What's wrong with going in that direction? The easiest version to learn and the gateway game into D&D for a great number of gamers. Not a bad inspiration.

 

[PeterWeller]

I will once again assert that the name of a rules element does not, and in most cases should not, correspond to its name in the setting.

Fighters don't learn "Power Attack" in-character. Rogues don't learn "Open Lock" in-character. They learn to make powerful, yet less-accurate attacks, or they learn to open locks of various types, but there is absolutely no reason to believe that these characters think of these things as discrete, capitalised phenomena from which they must pick and choose.

After all, the reason it's funny when the Order of the Stick makes in-character reference to game mechanics is because that's not how it bloody well works!

Likewise with class names, including the warlord. It would be ridiculous to refer to characters of the fighter class as "fighters" only, as opposed to "warriors" or "mercenaries" or "soldiers" or "knights" or whatever other in-character term would be appropriate to a given fighter character. The same applies to rogues (thieves, scouts), clerics (priests, templars), wizards (mages, witches, sorcerers), bards (troubadours, minstrels, lorekeepers) . . . any class you can name.

If you honestly play a game where fighters are referred to as "fighters" in-character, then I have to say I'm shocked and somewhat appalled, because it's a terribly stupid term for that purpose.

So the name of the warlord class doesn't matter one damn bit. Your own warlord PC will probably be called something which reflects his background and experiences; when I played a member of the armsman class in a d20 Wheel of Time campaign, I referred to him as a "cavalryman" because that's what his military experience was, or a "mercenary" because that's what he did now, or a "captain" when he entered the service of a border noblewoman and led her household guard. Calling him an "armsman" would have been really silly.

This is also exactly why I have no problem with GWA.

Also, if we stop dwelling on the name, Warlord, and instead look at what they do, there are numerous fictional archetypes that they draw from. King Arthur, Faramir, Tanis, Jon Snow, Odysseus, the list goes on.

 

[rounser]

I realize you did mention it later, but, do you have the same problem with paladin?

Paladin is a D&Dism, yes, but at least it is a disused word they're redefining (Charlemagne's knights don't get referenced much), not one with currency and meaning in the here and now, appearing on the headlines.

And just because a D&Dism or three exists in the core is not carte blanche to alienate D&D further from solid fantasy archetypes. D&D is popular despite these, IMO, not because of them (and how people substitute "holy white knight" in their head for paladin and "fighting healer priest" for cleric, generally. The weaker archetype is the cleric, because it borders on incoherent, with little in the way of mythological touchstones. Warlord even lacks a basic archetype, the closest being "fighting cheerleader" or "drill sergeant", neither of which float in an adventuring party).

Get as D&Dism and world-specific as you like in specific settings, go beserk, just leave the core relatively accomodating of fantasy worldbuilding in general, not just WOTC's idea of a cool fantasy world. Strong, general fantasy archetypes support that; weak, contrived or world-specific ones damage it.

The evolution of the "warlord" probably goes something like this:
Bard in AD&D 1E appendix, proto-prestige class. Super-tough, celtic-flavoured and legendary, reflects mythological bard to a degree. Strong archetype.
Rogue needs sub-class for design symmetry in 2E. Bard gets promoted, loses way, becomes musician. Archetype becomes jack-of-all-trades minstrel, about as appropriate as a jester core class.
3E design team tries to fix bard. Becomes poster boy for their ideas on spell failure in armour.
3.5 tries to fix the damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't relationship the class has with spell use and armour.
4E design team agrees with Order of the Stick that lutes in a dungeon is ridiculous. Tries to fix bard by removing instruments, renames Marshal to Warlord. Forgets to include a viable archetype, being focused on cool crunch possibilities.

 

[Remathilis]

First of all, Warlord has an archetype to me. Its someone who a decent warrior but a master at command and control. We'd call him a general in the modern world (or an admiral, etc) but "warlord" is more evocative of a time of swords and sorcery.

What's he doing in a D&D party? The same damn thing a man of the cloth, a weak-bodied book-learner, and a pseudo-eastern mystic is doing: not making any sense but being a fun archetype to play.

And he can be versatile: a orc chieftain, a dwarven captain, a halfling sheriff, a human border guard commander. To use the military analogy: West Point trains officers, not simple grunt soldiers. A D&D warlord is simply a recently graduated West Point officer: trained but not tested, and adventuring is a strong way to earn you stripes.

And really, all D&D class names are terrible. Each is divorced from their cultural or historical reference (bard, druid, monk, barbarian, paladin, cleric) or just a simple descriptor of profession or aptitude (fighter, rogue, swashbuckler, beguiler, scout). Some are names for the sake of needing a name (duskblade, sorcerer, hexblade, warmage). Getting hung up on Warlord seems minor when 3.5 graced us with class names like "Spellthief" and "Favored Soul" Least Warlord SOUNDS like its trying to fit in with fighter, wizard, and ranger...

 

[rounser]

First of all, Warlord has an archetype to me. Its someone who a decent warrior but a master at command and control.

Then you don't know what the term means.

 

[Rechan]

Then you don't know what the term means.

So are you saying the Name or the Class has no archetype?

 

[rounser]

So are you saying the Name or the Class has no archetype?

Name doesn't fit a D&D adventuring party, doesn't mean what WOTC wants it to mean, and is also a poor choice because the word is still in common use, meaning something else entirely. A D&D party is not a mobile war or army, nor is it political or prone to "declare war".

The archetype, being "fighting cheerleader" or "drill sergeant", is both unrelated to the name and doesn't belong in an adventuring party. Neither archetype fits there.

So it's a triple or quadruple whammy of inappropriateness. It's too dodgy to be worthy of inclusion in the core, IMO, but perhaps good supplement fodder.

 

[Rechan]

Then perhaps you need to expand your notion of what fits in an adventuring party.