Paladin should kill the Warlord and take his stuff!

[The Shadow]

With an archetype. In the paladin's case, "holy knight". Warlord seemingly doesn't have a unifying concept other than "combat aid", which isn't an archetype.

You know, I see this sort of thing a lot (in other threads too), and I really don't get it.

I don't look for an archetype in a class. I start with a character concept, and I pick the class that best helps me realize the idea I have. Whether the class is "archetypical" or not (a quality hard to define, surely?) is quite irrelevant.

My *concept* may well be archetypical, but the mechanics? All too often, D&D's "archetypes" differ from the ones in my head. All I want in a class is crunch that suits what I want to do.

 

[Gloombunny]

You know, I see this sort of thing a lot (in other threads too), and I really don't get it.

I don't look for an archetype in a class. I start with a character concept, and I pick the class that best helps me realize the idea I have. Whether the class is "archetypical" or not (a quality hard to define, surely?) is quite irrelevant.

My *concept* may well be archetypical, but the mechanics? All too often, D&D's "archetypes" differ from the ones in my head. All I want in a class is crunch that suits what I want to do.

I do this too.

I've recently come to understand that some people think of classes as archetypes and that characters should fit those archetypes, but it stills seems bizarre to me.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Yeah I would say one of the few-games where archetypes should be followed is WoD since all the different beings you can be: vampire, werewolf, changeling, promethean, etc. are supposed to be the basis for our archetypal-supernatural creatures.

But when your dealing with a completely separate universe, such archetypes may never have come into being, which is what we are dealing with in D&D.

 

[rounser]

I've recently come to understand that some people think of classes as archetypes and that characters should fit those archetypes, but it stills seems bizarre to me.

It's not that they should fit those archetypes, just that they provide a baseline from which you can depart. If you're not a very creative type, the concept of "wizard" is enough for others to get a handle on what your character is about. It's a very powerful feature of D&D, IMO, and making classes just ability packages squanders this. At least, it's unwise to do it in the core, IMO....there's scope for such stuff when it's more optional.

Classes without archetypes need a rethink when it comes to the core game, IMO. I mean, I can create a "class" called Rockwarden, with all these powers to do with rocks (sculpting, walking into rock, etc.) but such a class is perhaps inappropriate for the core game because the concept is somewhat arbitrary, and the name contrived. It's not a concept for every world, because there's no solid archetype there.

If Rockwardens made it into the PHB1, and not Skulldiggers (with abilities related to skullduggery), Haberdashers and Guttersnipes, then people would have a right to ask why. The Warlord is, to me, just as arbitrary, baseless and contrived, because of the lack of relevant archetype.

The "warlord", as just a package of combat aid abilities, should IMO be stripped of any pretension of being a class and just become a package of abilities, feats and stuff. Or get subsumed into a class that actually has an archetype.

Which just happens to be the topic of this thread.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I think the same can be said of any-class not played effectively. When someone doesn't use a class effectively it really comes down to, "uhh... I use *class ability*"

Where I think the Warlock will shine is for those players who are strategic, and understand combat-dynamics and know how to work together effectively, in such scenarios the Warlock will come into its own and become a very dynamic-class.

I don't think the name/archetype is necessary, since it all depends on how a class is played. Look at non-class games, many PCs fall into distinct type without the need of a class, it simply comes with playing-well.

Which is why a Warlord played effectively should be a separate class, because the play-style is different enough that it becomes a different entity then a fighter or paladin.

 

[rounser]

Look at non-class games, many PCs fall into distinct type without the need of a class, it simply comes with playing-well.

Yes, good players can make up for questionable design. That's neither here nor there though, IMO.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Well here I think is a difference in our views, I think that those who do like strategy and tactics and know the system well should deserve to have a class that reflects that. We have classes that reflect basically everything else (in this summary I am including what we think will be in PHB II) so why not something that reflects this?

Sure maybe less new players, or players in general will use it as much, but it is still very much a valid-class for those that take the time to understand and use correctly.

 

[rounser]

Well here I think is a difference in our views, I think that those who do like strategy and tactics and know the system well should deserve to have a class that reflects that.

All we need is some feats and class abilities which reflect that - they don't have to make an entire dodgy class to accomodate it. And look at it this way - if they're made a series of abilities spread across the classes, more people get to tap into this rather generic form of fun in combat.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

But this is when we get into the issue we had before with a class doing to many things. The concept and ideas shown so far for the Warlord are quite broad. Even to have these spread out amongst the classes would overwhelm the classes and muddle their own concept/archetype.

It makes more sense in my eyes to have a individual class based around the concept of tactical-control and warfare-knowledge, then to muddle other classes with it.

Also as other people have said, other classes can take these things if you wish to exclude the Warlock class, by taking Warlock Training Feats.

 

[rounser]

Even to have these spread out amongst the classes would overwhelm the classes and muddle their own concept/archetype.

They've already all been combatified.

The rogue strikes in a sneakyduck way that leaves the orc exposed to a hit from the fighter.

The ranger shouts "feather me yon oaf", whilst hefting his own bow.

The paladin makes an inspiring speech before the charge.

The fighter fights in such a way that another in the party gets a move free of AoOs.

And on and on...I'm not seeing it. And it makes sense that the ranger should be the archer tactical expert, rather than some savant who just happens to be expert on everything. Unfortunately, this approach doesn't help fill WOTC's "roles" grid, so is unlikely to be considered on that basis alone.