D&D 5E Warlord as a Fighter option; Assassin as a Rogue option

[Cadence]

So basically, what you think he did was:

5) Belittled and yelled at anyone who thought that the Warlord couldn't be integrated with the fighter without losing important mechanics or creating a mess of a class.

I thought he started at the very beginning of this thread with "Just a little thought experiment: if we rolled these classes together, what might it look like?" After tying to clarify a few posts later, added that he guesses he didn't contextualize his goals well enough. Used lots of smiley faces throughout, asked people to clarify their complaints and tried to address them, and seemed pretty polite until other folks basically told him he didn't have a clue what he was talking about. And then was called a liar in so many words.

 

[GreyICE]

So would you say his thought experiment demonstrated that the Warlord needs to be its own class, separate of the fighter?

 

[MoonSong]

Probably the Assassin might be able to be integrated with the rogue. After all back on first edition the Assassin was little more than a thief who could use more weapons, any poison, a special backstab table and some extra skills at the cost of delayed thieving progression, in second edition it was a Thief kit, in 3e a very different prestige class and in 4e we got shadow magic. Basically little has remained constant on the Assassin.

But the Warlord is too different from the Fighter on conceptual grounds. I'm really getting tired of this "Big Four eat as many other classes as possible" nonsense. Should the opinions of those who don't like certain classes weight more than those of the fans? Who has more knowledge about the esssence of a class, the one who played it to hearts content or the one who never played it or even played alongside it because he/she refused to play that particular edition?

Really is it too hard to acept? Paladins ain't clerics, Sorcerers ain't wizards, Rangers aren't thiefs, Barbarians aren't a Background and Warlords aren't Fighters (And healbots are goddamm fun!). Each class has it's fans and deserves a mechanical identity that does justice to it's fans expectations instead of being mistreated to please it's haters. I know it is a balancing act, I myslef don't like the warlord's non-magical healing because I want healbots to be viable, but I consider there is nothing wrong with the class as a whole and it has earned it's place on D&D, in fact except for the healing thing -whihc I don't like on any of the leader classes- I really find warlords a compelling and interesting class, something that had been oversight for many years -just as 3e gave us the sorcerer-.

We cannot just try to dismiss a class just because we don't like it, not in the Edition of Unity. If you cannot see why a class is a different class, ask it to the fans of said class and have the courtsy of ACTUALLY LISTENING when they answer instead of ignoring their reasons to love said class, that is the only way we can overcome prejudices and the stereotypes, only the ones who like a class are capable of saying why they like that class, when you just work based on your own preconceptions you are almost asured to miss the forest by the trees and doing something that alienates them.

 

[Cadence]

So would you say his thought experiment demonstrated that the Warlord needs to be its own class, separate of the fighter?

I think you've convinced me that having a separate Warlord class is the easiest way to get the entire range of tactical and inspirational Warlord. It might be the only reasonable way. This is especially true if there is a desire to move away from them necessarily being of the type that are capable of being on the front line with the fighter and paladin as they were described as being in 4e.

I think [MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION] has convinced me that the fighter could be expanded to give some of the flavor of the Warlord (apparently only the boring parts though in the eyes of Warlord afficianados).

I'm guessing that each individual's preference for the 1e/2e, 3.5/PF, or 4's combat systems will have a lot to do with how important/desirable they think having some of the powers you mentioned earlier are (like things whose mechanics involve pulling and pushing and bonus movements and attacks). Given that 5e is supposed to appeal to both 4eers and those from earlier editions, it seems to me they should try and get the full Warlord in there. But it might be better if some of some of the combat effects were limited to them (only grantable by them) and didn't show up more generally.

 

[variant]

So how does one be a level 1 warlord?

 

[GreyICE]

So how does one be a level 1 warlord?

Well I assume you pick a race, and then generate your stats, select your background, probably pick some options, I imagine it's in the design process. You could check the latest playtest packet for more details on generating characters at the moment (such as they are, it's quite beta).

 

[FireLance]

So how does one be a level 1 warlord?

Probably the same way you become a level 1 knight, but with more emphasis on group tactics and less emphasis on single combat.

In the spirit of the old 1e Unearthed Arcana, if you don't have an appropriate background (such as Son of a Petty Tyrant or Chieftain's Daughter), you will need to go through the 0-level Corporal and Sergeant levels first.

EDIT: Alternatively, you could go to a fun-fair with your friends where a strange ride deposits you in an entirely different world, and some wizened guy in robes hands you a magical loudspeaker.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I quite like the idea of integrating the classes. It makes a lot of sense to me that in order to help others fight better (the warlord schtick) you have to be a really good fighter yourself. The particulars given as an example don't feel complete enough for me to give a positive or negative judgement on.

 

[Inez Hull]

The problem with this is that any fighter can take them unrelated to actually being a warlord. It dilutes the warlord.

I'd view this as a feature.

I quite like the ideas behind what you are doing here, maneuvers open up the fighter and rogue for tailoring in the way 3E hinted at but failed to deliver.

 

[Inez Hull]

But the Warlord is too different from the Fighter on conceptual grounds. I'm really getting tired of this "Big Four eat as many other classes as possible" nonsense.

.....

Really is it too hard to acept? Paladins ain't clerics, Sorcerers ain't wizards, Rangers aren't thiefs, Barbarians aren't a Background and Warlords aren't Fighters

...

If you cannot see why a class is a different class, ask it to the fans of said class and have the courtsy of ACTUALLY LISTENING when they answer instead of ignoring their reasons to love said class, that is the only way we can overcome prejudices and the stereotypes, only the ones who like a class are capable of saying why they like that class, when you just work based on your own preconceptions you are almost asured to miss the forest by the trees and doing something that alienates them.

I suspect your sense of alienation isn't really related to KM's ideas, he has clearly stated its just a thought experiment. Don't worry he's not one of the designers of DDN so there's no need to convince him that you don't like his ideas.

I personally love the idea of making every build an option based off the base 4 classes, but thats just me. The beauty of message boards is we can all have different ideas, explore them, have a discussion but at the end of the day if our opinions wildly vary that's cool too.