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
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
[Warlords] Should D&D be tied to D&D Worlds?
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="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 6143986" data-attributes="member: 2067"><p>I'm on record as saying that I have no real problem with a warlord class personally, if only to appease the irrational fanbase that treats this one class as if it is the standard-bearer of an entire edition mindset (which is worth doing for 4e as much as it is worth doing for 1e or 2e or 3e or OD&D). I can't say I see a lot of other good reasons to have a warlord class, but I could probably say the same thing about the paladin or the barbarian or the rogue, personally. Heck, in my view, class is only a lump of abilities you could probably do a la carte anyway, a simplification, so I don't see a need in my personal games for ANY particular class. The Planescape game I'm putting together is going to have one class unique to each PC. Each character is going to have a few decision points to opt into abilities related to their selected character arc, referencing planes and factions -- how their personal stories interact with the setting is more important than our standard fantasy archetypes.</p><p></p><p>So accusing me of some kind of hypocrisy isn't going to prove my ideas meritless, here. I think the warlord is as viable a class as a class specifically named Aragorn and given all of Aragorn's abilities or as viable a class as a class named Person and given free access to every class ability in the game or as viable as a class named Lawful Good and given every 4e Leader's ability, or....class is a fluid concept for me, relative to the specific campaign. </p><p></p><p>I think for standard D&D, there's slightly different criteria. For them, from what they've said and what I can apprehend, the warlord as a distinct class seems to</p><ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"> Have a healing mechanic that works better as a table decision about the nature of hit points than as a specific class mechanic</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"> Have an archetype that steps on the toes of the Fighter and the Bard</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"> Have abilities that could easily be modeled with the fighter's bonus dice, spent on allies, or by the bard's buffing of the whole party with their voice. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"> Silo a set of non-magical ally-enhancing mechanics all within one class that no other classes can access. </li> </ol><p>....at least.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Right, and by focusing on them specifically, you're missing the point of the list. There is a litany of possible ways to do the healing and defense thing in D&D. Saying "who has the panic button?" misses the point that the game can be designed to not need a panic button, and, based on what they're saying, this seems like something they're doing. The panic button is one way among many to defend the party, not the only way. </p><p></p><p>So if no one needs to carry the panic button, there doesn't need to be a specific class devoted to a non-magical panic button, so "the game needs a class devoted to the non-magical panic button!" isn't a good argument for the warlord as a unique class, because the game doesn't need that, and I don't believe it is being designed to need that. </p><p></p><p>No one needs to carry the panic button. The game is being built with the idea of non-panic-button gameplay in mind. It can be, and it seems to be, and it's a good idea, and it means we don't need a class whose central shtick is to hit the panic button (but not with magic). </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm simply trying to show you that you can have the things you like about the warlord without having a specific class called "warlord" who has inspirational panic button healing. </p><p></p><p>If you're unwilling to accept that there might be successful alternatives of meeting your needs, then you already have the edition that does that fits your narrow definition of what a fun game of make-believe elf-magic can be. Play it. Be happy.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="I'm A Banana, post: 6143986, member: 2067"] I'm on record as saying that I have no real problem with a warlord class personally, if only to appease the irrational fanbase that treats this one class as if it is the standard-bearer of an entire edition mindset (which is worth doing for 4e as much as it is worth doing for 1e or 2e or 3e or OD&D). I can't say I see a lot of other good reasons to have a warlord class, but I could probably say the same thing about the paladin or the barbarian or the rogue, personally. Heck, in my view, class is only a lump of abilities you could probably do a la carte anyway, a simplification, so I don't see a need in my personal games for ANY particular class. The Planescape game I'm putting together is going to have one class unique to each PC. Each character is going to have a few decision points to opt into abilities related to their selected character arc, referencing planes and factions -- how their personal stories interact with the setting is more important than our standard fantasy archetypes. So accusing me of some kind of hypocrisy isn't going to prove my ideas meritless, here. I think the warlord is as viable a class as a class specifically named Aragorn and given all of Aragorn's abilities or as viable a class as a class named Person and given free access to every class ability in the game or as viable as a class named Lawful Good and given every 4e Leader's ability, or....class is a fluid concept for me, relative to the specific campaign. I think for standard D&D, there's slightly different criteria. For them, from what they've said and what I can apprehend, the warlord as a distinct class seems to [LIST=1] [*] Have a healing mechanic that works better as a table decision about the nature of hit points than as a specific class mechanic [*] Have an archetype that steps on the toes of the Fighter and the Bard [*] Have abilities that could easily be modeled with the fighter's bonus dice, spent on allies, or by the bard's buffing of the whole party with their voice. [*] Silo a set of non-magical ally-enhancing mechanics all within one class that no other classes can access. [/LIST] ....at least. Right, and by focusing on them specifically, you're missing the point of the list. There is a litany of possible ways to do the healing and defense thing in D&D. Saying "who has the panic button?" misses the point that the game can be designed to not need a panic button, and, based on what they're saying, this seems like something they're doing. The panic button is one way among many to defend the party, not the only way. So if no one needs to carry the panic button, there doesn't need to be a specific class devoted to a non-magical panic button, so "the game needs a class devoted to the non-magical panic button!" isn't a good argument for the warlord as a unique class, because the game doesn't need that, and I don't believe it is being designed to need that. No one needs to carry the panic button. The game is being built with the idea of non-panic-button gameplay in mind. It can be, and it seems to be, and it's a good idea, and it means we don't need a class whose central shtick is to hit the panic button (but not with magic). I'm simply trying to show you that you can have the things you like about the warlord without having a specific class called "warlord" who has inspirational panic button healing. If you're unwilling to accept that there might be successful alternatives of meeting your needs, then you already have the edition that does that fits your narrow definition of what a fun game of make-believe elf-magic can be. Play it. Be happy. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
[Warlords] Should D&D be tied to D&D Worlds?
Top