The Warlord, about it's past present and future, pitfalls and solutions. (Please calling all warlord players)

[Blackwarder]

I think making it a specialty fit nicely

Exactly what I said on the first comment in the thread.

Warder

 

[fendak]

Exactly what I said on the first comment in the thread.

Warder

Oh I apologize, I actually meant to quote you but I'm a newb. Full credit to you for the idea

 

[Blackwarder]

Oh I apologize, I actually meant to quote you but I'm a newb. Full credit to you for the idea

I wasn't complaining mate welcome to the forums!

Warder

 

[Obryn]

What makes you think they are throwing the warlord under the bus?

Warder

If it's a specialty, that's pretty much throwing it under the bus, imo.

-O

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

I think making it a specialty fits nicely. although, I'm sure it would work as a class. I just don't feel like it embodies where D&D Next is going.

And that's fine. Many of us disagree, and therefore don't feel like Next embodies where we are going with D&D.

If it's a specialty, that's pretty much throwing it under the bus, imo.

-O

Yep, pretty much.

 

[Manbearcat]

The Warlord is far, far, far too tactically and thematically deep to reproduce at the specialty level. What's more, I'm uncertain if the load-bearing power of feats can passably produce the potency of Warlord features. They would be neutered to the point of being pretty close to unrecognizable. I've had that concern about a lot of things that feats are supposed to reproduce. They just don't have the payload to reliably bring to bear certain class features of the past. I would like to see feats be much stronger than they are but, of course, then you run into trouble with the game at the Basic level of play. But hey, this was the design framework they went for so they have to live with the consequences of that decision. Fitting all the disparate puzzle pieces together is a 2nd and 3rd order effect, chainsaw-juggling, circus sideshow. I hope they maxed their Dexterity!

What's more, you run into the same problem where you're embedding (at least attempting to) former class features into extra-class resources (backgrounds and feats). It disallows people who want to play a warlord and then customize their character via feats to support that style of play. If the multi-classing rules are considerably open and the PC build tools considerably deep such that class-feature poaching is relatively easy, then this could work. But I'd have to see that be actually functional, and not Frankenstein-like and unwieldy at the table, before I give it a stamp of approval.

 

[Ratskinner]

To be honest, the psychology seems a lot more to do with, "It's in a 4e book, therefore it's bad" than anything else. The fact that Next healing gets a pass but healing surges are a problem pretty much shows that.

See, I see plenty of "4e did it right! 5e must do it exactly as 4e did or I won't play." at least in this thread. ::shrug::

I mean, if you could play an effective warlord, but "Warlord" doesn't happen to be a class, or if the Warlord class doesn't include healing which is in a "healer" specialty instead...is that really a problem? is that really "throwing the Warlord under the bus"? I don't think so. Its just repurposing or reassigning the various parts of 4e warlord and, as a side effect, giving you more options.

And just so folks don't think I'm taking edition war sides. I feel the same way about old-school proponents of Assassins (when that comes up) and Barbarians of any school. To me, its about creating the character's thematic archetype, whether that's from a class or not is irrelevant.

 

[Dragoslav]

I mean, if you could play an effective warlord, but "Warlord" doesn't happen to be a class, or if the Warlord class doesn't include healing which is in a "healer" specialty instead...is that really a problem? is that really "throwing the Warlord under the bus"? I don't think so. Its just repurposing or reassigning the various parts of 4e warlord and, as a side effect, giving you more options.

You have fewer options if you want to play a Warlord, though. Your option is: Play a Fighter and spend all your character resources taking the "Warlordy" feats.

 

[Obryn]

See, I see plenty of "4e did it right! 5e must do it exactly as 4e did or I won't play." at least in this thread. ::shrug::

In the singular case of the warlord, I think 4e did do it right. It didn't do *everything* right, but in this specific example...

I do think the concept merits a class, not a specialty. And the existence and/or quality will influence my opinion about the game. I know it won't be in Core, but it is - like I said - a keyhole into the game's design philosophy and will drive whether or not I buy any further.

I'm not seeing how any of this is crazy, so...

 

[D'karr]

I mean, if you could play an effective warlord, but "Warlord" doesn't happen to be a class, or if the Warlord class doesn't include healing which is in a "healer" specialty instead...is that really a problem?

You could play an effective druid, but "Druid" doesn't happen to be a class, or if the Druid class doesn't include healing which is in a "healer" specialty instead...is that really a problem?

If that is the "tack" to take, then you could make that assertion of almost any class.

The problem, as I see it, is that a specialty/theme are not complete/robust enough to encompass all the nuances of a class. You use a specialty or theme to tailor and "sprinkle" small details to an existing class. A class has a lot of load bearing to do, and warlord is a "thick" class with a lot of features not easily dumped on a specialty/theme.