Water, water everywhere, Nor any drop to drink

[Jester David]

I would say that one of the major problems, however, is that when people list examples of warlord archetypes, they get dismissively handwaved away. "Oh, those are just fighters with leadership feats." or "Oh, those characters can't possibly contribute to our understanding of the warlord, since they commanded troops."

It's as if we were talking about rangers, and we were repeatedly met with "No, those aren't rangers. Those are just fighters with wilderness skills and feats." or "They can't be considered rangers, since they are mundane and D&D rangers must cast spells." If everything gets irreducibly reduced to being just a fighter with X, it's a miracle we have barbarians, rangers, and paladins at all.

There's no shortage of character archetypes and roles that could be denoted as classes. Some broad and some small. Anything could be a class if you wanted.
My personal go-to is the jester. But there's also the black knight, detective/investigator, the gentleman adventurer, dragoon, samurai, ninja, corsair, bounty hunter, blood mage, shapechanger, etc. Some, like the death knight, exist in Warcraft and are thus incredibly well known and popular.

But just because something is a trope, an archetypal character, doesn't mean it needs to be a class.

The barbarian, paladin, and ranger totally do overlap with the fighter. As does the monk really. Ditto the sorcerer and warlock with the wizard. Really, you only need three classes: the warrior, the expert, and the spellcaster. Everything else is flavour.
But stuff like the cleric and ranger get included because tradition. They get grandfathered in because they've been a part of the game since 1st Edition. They've been included for two or three editions and a couple in a row. They're not just fantasy tropes, but D&D tropes.

Even then "person who leads people but isn't overtly magical" is a pretty weak archetype. Because it's so very, very easy to have a leader that's also a rogue or a wizard or paladin.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Even then "person who leads people but isn't overtly magical" is a pretty weak archetype. Because it's so very, very easy to have a leader that's also a rogue or a wizard or paladin.

This exactly. "Leader of men" isn't a class. It's a personality.

 

[jayoungr]

Avatar the Last Airbender's Sokka? Aang is the undisputed leader of the group, but Sokka is the mundane tactician, strategist, and planner. Is he a warrior/fighter? Sure, but he often was regularly outclassed by other mundane fighters, such as his girlfriend Suki, Jet, Ty Lee, or even Zuko without his firebending.

I'm not familiar with AtLA (I know, I know! I'll get around to it one of these days ), but that sounds like a good example. Out of curiosity, does Sokka ever inspire the group, or is that a separate thing? If it is separate, does Aang do most of the inspiring, or does someone else do it?

Mat Cauthon of Wheel of Time. Sure he became a commander of the Band of the Red Hand, but that was something he stumbled into as a result of tactical competency.

I was looking for examples that avoid that scenario, though. The goal is to find examples that don't imply that inspiration and/or tactical ability are inevitably linked to being in a position of authority over the rest of the group.

 

[mellored]

Ditto the sorcerer and warlock with the wizard.

Warlock is pretty different, mechanicly, if not from a flavor standpoint.

Really, you only need three classes: the warrior, the expert, and the spellcaster. Everything else is flavour.

Ehh..

You need the at-will, the short rest, and the long rest. Everything else is just flavor.

 

[mellored]

This exactly. "Leader of men" isn't a class. It's a personality.

Rogue, barbarian, ranger, fighter, or monk are also "personalities".

Didn't stop them from being classes.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Since it does not actually exist in our world it can be whatever you want it to be. You can make it as specific or general as you like. The only limit is that it should be internally consistent. But that doesn't make it arbitrary.

How does 'can be whatever you want it to be' not imply 'arbitrary?'

Anyone who designs a magic system is going to have reasons for how they design it.

Sure. Gygax came out and said that he chose the 'Vancian' relatively short spoken spell, because it would allow casters to participate, unlike the more true-to-genre-and-folklore elaborate ritual with lots of materials.

I doubt that an "arbitrarily broken/overpowered/game-wrecking" magic system is to anyone's taste.

Then you reckon without the popularity of 3.5, just for one instance. ;P

And considering how different the 5e magic system is compared to the original 1e/2e system, I don't think tradition holds much weight either.

Is it that different? 9 spell levels, spells a daily resource chosen each morning? Sure, it's shed a lot of limitations - easily cast in melee, no interruption or loss, prepped spells plus spontaneous use of slots vs memorizing into a slot, cantrips being at-will, &c. So many of the old standbys still at basically the same level. New spell levels gained at about the same caster levels.

Yes it worked for Fantasy Hero as well, but it gave the game a different feel from D&D because of it.

It could. It depended on how far you went. You could use the Delay modifier to re-create D&D style Vancian casting, for instance. You could design armor to add DCV levels rather than pd/ed... ;p You could even model the way hps were conceived as partially avoiding attacks, turning deadly wounds into scratches and so forth, with Damage Reduction. That was a funny thing about Hero, it was designed so you could model all sorts of things from all sorts of genres. But, you could even model artifacts and foibles of other systems if you wanted to. Lol.

And you are making the assumption that HPs were always an entirely abstract measure that never represented wounds

It's not an assumption, EGG came right out and said it in the 1e DMG. Mind you, I suspect he did so in response to criticism of hps as 'unrealistic...'

, but then simultaneously claiming that the Cure Wounds spells were not abstract and only represented healing actual, physical wounds. Do you think maybe the problem is not with the rules, but with your interpretation of them?

Not with my interpretation, no, because I'm OK with hps being very abstract, and that allows everything from spells to short-rest HD to natural 20 death saves restoring hps to work pretty seamlessly. Pointing out the literal interpretation of "Cure Wounds" was just an example of how getting more granular and rigorous than the system itself even tries to be results in silliness - that's all the objections to "shouty martial healing" are. No different from thinking Cure Wounds can only literally heal by making actual, bleeding tissue-damage wounds caused by physical attacks just disappear.

 

[Jester David]

Warlock is pretty different, mechanicly, if not from a flavor standpoint.

Differentiating classes mechanically is easy. You can have near infinite amounts of classes because there's always another mechanical angle or hook.
Mechanics are the least interesting reason to make a class.

Flavour wise, warlocks are just an origin story. A backstory to how an adventurer gained their power.

 

[mellored]

Mechanics are the least interesting reason to make a class.

I disagree.
If all i have is 10 different flavors of 1d8+5 damage, it get's boring.

I need someone who can do 2d6+5, and someone else who has +2 AC, and someone else who does AoE damage, ect...


Granted, they don't need to be different "classes", different mechanical "builds" also works. Illusionist and evokers both have their own unique mechanics and style, but fit under the same class easily enough. But that's due to the "build-your-own-class" that comes from known spells.


Which just get's me back to wishing they stuck with the playtest fighter, who had modular maneuvers and would be able to fit much more under it.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Rogue, barbarian, ranger, fighter, or monk are also "personalities".

No. You are wrong.

Didn't stop them from being classes.

Those are all classes that have existed since AD&D. I just went back and looked at my old books. Couldn't seem to find a "warlord", though.

Oh wait. I spoke too soon. There it is: Fighter. All you have to do is play one with a "leader of men" personality and you were good to go. Bonus: they even gather a modest army to command. Awesome!

 

[Jester David]

I disagree.
If all i have is 10 different flavors of 1d8+5 damage, it get's boring.

I need someone who can do 2d6+5, and someone else who has +2 AC, and someone else who does AoE damage, ect...


Granted, they don't need to be different "classes", different mechanical "builds" also works. Illusionist and evokers both have their own unique mechanics and style, but fit under the same class easily enough. But that's due to the "build-your-own-class" that comes from known spells.


Which just get's me back to wishing they stuck with the playtest fighter, who had modular maneuvers and would be able to fit much more under it.

I'm not saying that classes shouldn't have unique and different mechanics, just that mechanics should not be a reason a class exists.
Having a few method of spellcasting or a variant on power recharging is NOT a reason for a class to exist.
There needs to be strong flavour paired with the unique mechanics. There needs to me a marriage of crunch and fluff.

Rogue, barbarian, ranger, fighter, or monk are also "personalities".


Didn't stop them from being classes.

Nope. Totally didn't.
But we really don't need more.