New WotC Product: The Complete Warrior

[John Crichton]

There is no "report", aside from the title. The idea that it is a book dedicated to the Warrior NPC class is rank (and ludicrous, frankly) speculation.

It's actually quite funny that all we have is a title and yet there is quite a fuss raised over it. If this was a product released by any other company than WotC we wouldn't even be having this lively debate/discussion. I just find it amusing. We haven't even gotten a press release yet from Wizard's, have we?

 

[Bendris Noulg]

It's actually quite funny that all we have is a title and yet there is quite a fuss raised over it.

Yeah, but it's so much fun.

 

[John Crichton]

Yeah, but it's so much fun.

Hey, I did say I was amused. In a good way.

 

[Wolv0rine]

There is no "report", aside from the title. The idea that it is a book dedicated to the Warrior NPC class is rank (and ludicrous, frankly) speculation.

Now that's just uncalled for. I was one of, if not the first person in this thread, to suggest that theory, and I think it's as valid as any other, much moreso IMOHO than more than a few here. Expanding upon the NPC classes isn't some mentally deficient idea any more than expanding upon a campaign setting, or any other DM-side of the game. You could pull out the tired old adage of "Any DM can make that up for themselves", which while true can easily be taken to a not-so-far-along place where the entire arguement breaks down, because the DM could make up anything for himself, and who needs any of the books, DMG and PH included. People love filler, they love it crunchy and they love it fluffy, but they love it. Obviously not all people, but many, many people. If the book's about NPC warrior classes, it'll sell. It may not be useful to many DMs around here, but that's not the point.
The Warrior is specifically different from the Fighter in a lot of ways, even discounting the fact that Fighter is a PC class, and Warrior and NPC class. Warrior has a sort of connotation to it, because of the fact that warriors are footsoldiers and grunts and bulk troops, that would make it much easier and a more logical extension to contain rules for warfare, general military crunch, sound strategy layouts and suggestions, and all the other sorts of things that troops do that those elite adventurers known as Fighters are usually above (being off fighting Wyverns and Ogres and Bugbears and the like instead of marching in overseen formation day after day and doing menial soldier duties).
Hmm, upon re-reading this, I apologize. I meant to merely support the suggestion's merits, but I was obviously ont he defensive over the slight, which wasn't my intention, but I'm not going to re-type all this. Anyway, back to your regularly scheduled programming.

 

[John Crichton]

Hmm, upon re-reading this, I apologize. I meant to merely support the suggestion's merits, but I was obviously ont he defensive over the slight, which wasn't my intention, but I'm not going to re-type all this. Anyway, back to your regularly scheduled programming.

Wow, that is sure one way to diffuse an arguement.

But, just to comment in general: I wouldn't buy a sourcebook dedicated to the warrior NPC class. I do hope they change the name of that class, too. Monte was right in regretting doing it in the first place.

 

[Wolv0rine]

Wow, that is sure one way to diffuse an arguement.

I got a lot of practice in the "Who owns PCs?" thread. ;P

But, just to comment in general: I wouldn't buy a sourcebook dedicated to the warrior NPC class. I do hope they change the name of that class, too. Monte was right in regretting doing it in the first place.

Oh, I wouldn't buy it either, but that's mostly because I don't have an rpg-budget. (Up-side: I get comp copies of books my work's in. Down-side: I need to get more art gigs, I don't have many books. hehehe)
As for the name of the class, I don't think there's much one can do about it. At one point or another, all the NPC class names have this problem, and probably would with any other name. Best way I can think of to fix that problem is for noone to actually use those terms in game, only in DM texts and notes. That way anyone with a pointy stick the DM can describe as "a warrior" without the PCs assuming he means it literally. *shrugs*

 

[Olive]

i suggested it being about the NPC class, but I was joking. the report, so far as it goes, has no other source, and may or may not be accurate. I doubt we'll know until WotC releases their 4th quarter catalog.

 

[kenjib]

Wow, that is sure one way to diffuse an arguement.

But, just to comment in general: I wouldn't buy a sourcebook dedicated to the warrior NPC class. I do hope they change the name of that class, too. Monte was right in regretting doing it in the first place.

Anyone know what his reason for disliking "warrior" was? I can see the same naming problem with rogue, expert, monk, and barbarian. Those names all represent concepts that are much larger in scope than the actual class is. Why single out warrior in particular?

 

[John Crichton]

Too generic of a description. Fighters are often called warriors in general I believe it what his reasoning was. Makes perfect sense to me. When I read it in what I thought was one of his columns, I realized that it was a descent sized error on his part. No huge deal because he did do a great job on the book as a whole.

I believe the column had something to do with names and naming conventions in gaming. Not sure, tho.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Well, my theory is that a bit of the splat-book material is likely going to get into 3.5 (mostly Feats & Equipment, possibly Prestige Classes). After this, what's left will likely either be scrapped (outdated and/or never worked right to begin with) or updated and compiled with new information. Mass-combat would be nice, but not holding my breath.

The name would imply, over-all, a more "martial" sense of things, being that primarily Fighters, Monks and (possibly) Warriors would gain most from it, but will include things easily adopted by Rangers, Paladins and battle-centric Clerics. With the suggestion of new Core Classes being introduced in the Miniatures book, and with mass combat being suggested in regards to it, there may be a Class or three in that which would benefit as well.

Again, though, just a theory. We'll find out in due time, I suppose.