Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Mike Mearls Happy Fun Hour: The Warlord
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7374723" data-attributes="member: 996"><p>Well, sub-class at hand. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /> Which is a hopeful step, though it can't plausibly deliver anything more than a faux-MC Fighter/Warlord. Expecting more from a fighter sub-class is unrealistic. </p><p></p><p> It's just being used in the podcast to refer to warlord features.</p><p></p><p> Interesting.</p><p></p><p> Except it's not. The Ranger started as a (rather tenuous) Aragorn clone, with alignment & logistical restrictions, an extra HD at level 1, specific woodsy skills, a focus on killing giants, and, at high level, magic and oddball woodsy followers. ::huh?:: In 2e, it got Drizztzed into a lighter-armored, TWFer. In 3e, it started out with bonus feats focued on TWFing or Archery, then switched to 1/2 caster spells, got good skill points, full BAB, an animal companion - and could pick a variety of 'favored enemies' rather than just giants. Then, in 4e, the spells are gone, the TWF/Archery dichotomy stays, and the animal companion is gone (no, wait, it's back, no, wait, it's gone again, but the spells are back, sorta, in Essentials). </p><p></p><p>So, it never had a clear, broadly applicable concept in the first place, and what it was changed in each edition. That's pretty muddled.</p><p></p><p>There's no such issue with the Warlord. It has a clear, strong archetype in genre, myth, legend (and, as a non-magical concept, other genres and history). It has had only one implementation, which was clear, balanced, and effective. </p><p></p><p></p><p>And the martial power source, in the sense of non-magical 'powers' that recharged on a rest and did cool things, is already there in 5e, there's Action Surge & Second Wind, and BM Maneuvers. So, meh, to the Trojan Horse theory, though it certainly does shed some light on what's driving Rem to bomb the thread.</p><p></p><p> Yep, and it's probably going to be hard to see eachother's PoV, too. One of the few, more nearly plausible criticisms of the Warlord concept is that (like the fighter & rogue) it's abilities, since they're not magical or god-granted or anything, are "things anyone can do." Anyone can hit you with a greatsword, the fighter does it a lot better than just anyone. That kinda thing. By the same token, any fighter can hit you with a greatsword, the one with the GW style & feat does it that much better. </p><p></p><p>The Warlord's use of tactics, inspiration, maneuvers, plans, opportunities, preparation, allies, deception, etc to try to achieve victory in battle are not exclusive to any one flavor or warlord, not entirely. So that doesn't really point to a class with specific abilities locked into mutually-exclusive sub-classes, like, ironically, the fighter (which also really shouldn't have abilities locked into mutually-exclusive sub-classes, but very demonstrably does). And, also ironically, like the wizard, which defies genre in making all spells theoretically available to all wizards (in genre, most characters that display magic, display a fairly specific set of magical powers), and does so very neatly with traditions that each emphasize a school of magic, rather than specializing in it to the exclusion of one or more others.</p><p></p><p>So it seems clear that the Warlord should be one of those classes with most of it's capabilities tied up in a pool of very flexible features on the chassis, with sub-classes taking different approaches to using them, with different advantages to do so with certain sorts.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7374723, member: 996"] Well, sub-class at hand. ;) Which is a hopeful step, though it can't plausibly deliver anything more than a faux-MC Fighter/Warlord. Expecting more from a fighter sub-class is unrealistic. It's just being used in the podcast to refer to warlord features. Interesting. Except it's not. The Ranger started as a (rather tenuous) Aragorn clone, with alignment & logistical restrictions, an extra HD at level 1, specific woodsy skills, a focus on killing giants, and, at high level, magic and oddball woodsy followers. ::huh?:: In 2e, it got Drizztzed into a lighter-armored, TWFer. In 3e, it started out with bonus feats focued on TWFing or Archery, then switched to 1/2 caster spells, got good skill points, full BAB, an animal companion - and could pick a variety of 'favored enemies' rather than just giants. Then, in 4e, the spells are gone, the TWF/Archery dichotomy stays, and the animal companion is gone (no, wait, it's back, no, wait, it's gone again, but the spells are back, sorta, in Essentials). So, it never had a clear, broadly applicable concept in the first place, and what it was changed in each edition. That's pretty muddled. There's no such issue with the Warlord. It has a clear, strong archetype in genre, myth, legend (and, as a non-magical concept, other genres and history). It has had only one implementation, which was clear, balanced, and effective. And the martial power source, in the sense of non-magical 'powers' that recharged on a rest and did cool things, is already there in 5e, there's Action Surge & Second Wind, and BM Maneuvers. So, meh, to the Trojan Horse theory, though it certainly does shed some light on what's driving Rem to bomb the thread. Yep, and it's probably going to be hard to see eachother's PoV, too. One of the few, more nearly plausible criticisms of the Warlord concept is that (like the fighter & rogue) it's abilities, since they're not magical or god-granted or anything, are "things anyone can do." Anyone can hit you with a greatsword, the fighter does it a lot better than just anyone. That kinda thing. By the same token, any fighter can hit you with a greatsword, the one with the GW style & feat does it that much better. The Warlord's use of tactics, inspiration, maneuvers, plans, opportunities, preparation, allies, deception, etc to try to achieve victory in battle are not exclusive to any one flavor or warlord, not entirely. So that doesn't really point to a class with specific abilities locked into mutually-exclusive sub-classes, like, ironically, the fighter (which also really shouldn't have abilities locked into mutually-exclusive sub-classes, but very demonstrably does). And, also ironically, like the wizard, which defies genre in making all spells theoretically available to all wizards (in genre, most characters that display magic, display a fairly specific set of magical powers), and does so very neatly with traditions that each emphasize a school of magic, rather than specializing in it to the exclusion of one or more others. So it seems clear that the Warlord should be one of those classes with most of it's capabilities tied up in a pool of very flexible features on the chassis, with sub-classes taking different approaches to using them, with different advantages to do so with certain sorts. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Mike Mearls Happy Fun Hour: The Warlord
Top