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
D&D Older Editions
Where was 4e headed before it was canned?
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="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7646919" data-attributes="member: 996"><p>It was only in print for a few years, but it finished middle of the pack in the one less formal L&L playtest poll that dared include it as an option, ahead of Sorcerer and Ranger, for instance. There was never a single question about it in any of the formal playtest polls, though. </p><p></p><p></p><p>I guess you could call it the Warlord effect: however few or many people played a warlord, the /idea/ of anyone, anywhere, having the option to play a warlord (or an effective non-beatstick fighter, or even a beatstick with DoaM), there were enough folks out there who would be sufficiently offended by the prospect to re-ignite the edition war. </p><p></p><p></p><p>The 5e version of inclusion fell into the paradox of needing to include the exclusionary: there were long-time fans who would 'feel excluded' had the Warlord or been included. </p><p></p><p> It was just critically important to avoid further edition warring. When the nerdly cult surrounding a marginal IP flames with nerdrage, the mainstream stays away. It's sunk many a franchise launch. </p><p></p><p>And, it's why a topic like this is relevant, because 5e /can't afford/ to go in the direction 4e was going, so we'll only ever get to speculate about where that might have gone.</p><p></p><p></p><p>It's 5 years in. That's longer than the run of 3.0, 4e, or 4e/E+. When the gnome appeared in the PHII, 9 months in, the Monk in the PHIII and the dumbed-down Slayer in HotFK barely more than 2 years in, it was "too little too late."</p><p></p><p>The Warlord will never work as a fighter sub-class, the BM already illustrated that, as did that effort. The Fighter is simply too dedicated to tanky DPR to have 'room' on its chassis for a support class - and, frankly, it's too burdened by tradition in it's design. It'd have to be it's own class. Mearls handful of tactical abilities in a fighter sub-class, and BM maneuvers might be a place to start for mechanics, but they'd have to be built up to something reasonable to handle the Warlord's concept, in the context of 5e. And, in that context, support classes don't just do support, they provide tremendous power & versatility, on top of the basics.</p><p></p><p>That's a very tall order when giving /anything/ to a martial class is likely to be met with rampant nerdrage and renewed edition warring. </p><p></p><p></p><p>It still took 5 years to get the first new class into 5e. Psionics is up next, so, what, a Warlord in 2029?</p><p></p><p></p><p>I would exclude the eClasses from consideration of how the 4e direction would have gone, because Essentials was already firmly re-oriented on the 5e direction. From Essentials, we would have eventually gotten to 5e, in some sense or some way, probably by continuing to obviate earlier 4e options with OP alternatives and general pointed lack of support, or even mention going forward. </p><p></p><p>From the 4e direction, I'd speculate that, yes, a hypothetical DMG III would include support/advice for Epic, and continued improvement to Skill Challenges. We would not have seen the MME changes to magic items, OTOH.</p><p></p><p>PHIV, presumably, would build on the Assassin, just not the way HoS did, giving it more builds but probably all using Shrowds and all AEDU. The round out the Shadow Source with the other 3 roles. the PH II and III both tossed in additional classes from prior sources, but I can't imagine there was much to scrape up after the relative debacles of Seeker & Rune Priest. But, maybe, an additional Psionic class of some sort? Like a Psychokineticist or something, for a more firmly psi striker than the Monk? </p><p>It could also depend on the setting book coming out around the same time. If it were Ravenloft, for instance, the revenant and even vampire (though, hopefully not Vampire-as-class) might make an appearance. Maybe - maybe in the PHIV, more likely in a Ravenloft supplement - the Vampire could be a sort of template, based on the hybrid mechanics but inflicted after play begins. A character inflicted with vampirism would get powers, need to drink blood to get back surges, etc - using those powers would cause the loss of existing powers and class features, until the character permanently became 'vampiric,' and the ultimate threat of losing control of the character and just becoming a monster could be there - but, he might resist or even be cured? </p><p>Actually, I could see a number of undead-afflicted but-not-quite-turned options along those lines, maybe tied into the Ravenloft theme of dark powers...?</p><p>...Or, OK, if the PHIV were riffing off a Ravenloft theme, maybe another class or two from other sources of a similarly sinister vibe? Like an Arcane "Necromancer" or Divine "Death Priest" or, conversely, "Undead Slayer" or something... a Psionic "Medium" perhaps, not sure what that'd be, probably more of a Theme, really...?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7646919, member: 996"] It was only in print for a few years, but it finished middle of the pack in the one less formal L&L playtest poll that dared include it as an option, ahead of Sorcerer and Ranger, for instance. There was never a single question about it in any of the formal playtest polls, though. I guess you could call it the Warlord effect: however few or many people played a warlord, the /idea/ of anyone, anywhere, having the option to play a warlord (or an effective non-beatstick fighter, or even a beatstick with DoaM), there were enough folks out there who would be sufficiently offended by the prospect to re-ignite the edition war. The 5e version of inclusion fell into the paradox of needing to include the exclusionary: there were long-time fans who would 'feel excluded' had the Warlord or been included. It was just critically important to avoid further edition warring. When the nerdly cult surrounding a marginal IP flames with nerdrage, the mainstream stays away. It's sunk many a franchise launch. And, it's why a topic like this is relevant, because 5e /can't afford/ to go in the direction 4e was going, so we'll only ever get to speculate about where that might have gone. It's 5 years in. That's longer than the run of 3.0, 4e, or 4e/E+. When the gnome appeared in the PHII, 9 months in, the Monk in the PHIII and the dumbed-down Slayer in HotFK barely more than 2 years in, it was "too little too late." The Warlord will never work as a fighter sub-class, the BM already illustrated that, as did that effort. The Fighter is simply too dedicated to tanky DPR to have 'room' on its chassis for a support class - and, frankly, it's too burdened by tradition in it's design. It'd have to be it's own class. Mearls handful of tactical abilities in a fighter sub-class, and BM maneuvers might be a place to start for mechanics, but they'd have to be built up to something reasonable to handle the Warlord's concept, in the context of 5e. And, in that context, support classes don't just do support, they provide tremendous power & versatility, on top of the basics. That's a very tall order when giving /anything/ to a martial class is likely to be met with rampant nerdrage and renewed edition warring. It still took 5 years to get the first new class into 5e. Psionics is up next, so, what, a Warlord in 2029? I would exclude the eClasses from consideration of how the 4e direction would have gone, because Essentials was already firmly re-oriented on the 5e direction. From Essentials, we would have eventually gotten to 5e, in some sense or some way, probably by continuing to obviate earlier 4e options with OP alternatives and general pointed lack of support, or even mention going forward. From the 4e direction, I'd speculate that, yes, a hypothetical DMG III would include support/advice for Epic, and continued improvement to Skill Challenges. We would not have seen the MME changes to magic items, OTOH. PHIV, presumably, would build on the Assassin, just not the way HoS did, giving it more builds but probably all using Shrowds and all AEDU. The round out the Shadow Source with the other 3 roles. the PH II and III both tossed in additional classes from prior sources, but I can't imagine there was much to scrape up after the relative debacles of Seeker & Rune Priest. But, maybe, an additional Psionic class of some sort? Like a Psychokineticist or something, for a more firmly psi striker than the Monk? It could also depend on the setting book coming out around the same time. If it were Ravenloft, for instance, the revenant and even vampire (though, hopefully not Vampire-as-class) might make an appearance. Maybe - maybe in the PHIV, more likely in a Ravenloft supplement - the Vampire could be a sort of template, based on the hybrid mechanics but inflicted after play begins. A character inflicted with vampirism would get powers, need to drink blood to get back surges, etc - using those powers would cause the loss of existing powers and class features, until the character permanently became 'vampiric,' and the ultimate threat of losing control of the character and just becoming a monster could be there - but, he might resist or even be cured? Actually, I could see a number of undead-afflicted but-not-quite-turned options along those lines, maybe tied into the Ravenloft theme of dark powers...? ...Or, OK, if the PHIV were riffing off a Ravenloft theme, maybe another class or two from other sources of a similarly sinister vibe? Like an Arcane "Necromancer" or Divine "Death Priest" or, conversely, "Undead Slayer" or something... a Psionic "Medium" perhaps, not sure what that'd be, probably more of a Theme, really...? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
Where was 4e headed before it was canned?
Top