I'm laying out some rules here. I'll report as disruptive any post that gets too far off topic (because that is disruptive). I hope others can do the same for my posts, and keep me in line too.
(1) For the sake of this thread, we're ASSUMING that the Warlord (a) deserves to be a class, and (b) will be a class (as opposed to a "subclass" or whathaveyou). Arguments about that are off-topic, disruptive, and should be reported.
(2) For the sake of this thread, we're ASSUMING that the Warlord will be an option independant of any "Tactical Module". This means we should be designing with the same level of "theater of the mind vs. battlemat" as the other classes in DDN currently utilize, which heavily leans toward TotM. Arguments about TotM vs. Battlemats, or anything along those lines, are off-topic, disruptive, and should be reported.
(3) Tread lightly on the topic of "healing". If you like it for the class, try to implement it in your suggestions. If you don't, say so in your comments and critiques of others' work - but leave it at that. There's a fine line between discussing someone's suggestion or responding to a criticism and taking the "healing" thing completely off-topic. Watch it. Arguments about "healing" are probably off-topic, most likely disruptive, and should probably be reported. Use some judgement.
(4) We're here to discuss, brainstorm, and just play around with concepts and mechanics. Have fun. Offer critiques. Make suggestions of your own. Try to stay constructive.
So if you can't tell, I'm just a bit tired of the "warlord discussions" around here actually being arguments about those things listed above. So let's get away from that, for a while, and actually sit down and play around with design.
From another thread, this is where my current conceptualizing is starting:
56790678 wrote:56761048 wrote:56790678 wrote:58422808 wrote:I actually think the Warlord should go the Rogue-route with Skill Trick-like things, but using them to apply his or her skill dice as bonuses to allies – attacks, defences, movement, etc.
If I had to bet, right now, a "skill die"-based Warlord is what I would bet on seeing.
It's a compelling thought, but I find myself struggling with it.
A huge aspect of 'bard' when I think of bards is 'skills'. I'd hedge huge bets on the fact that the bard will have access to skill tricks in some form.
We quibble over whether the bard is part cleric, part druid, part wizard, or all of the above, but we all seem to agree that the bard is part rogue.
In the interest of differentiation, I'd keep warlords free of mechanics that monkey with the skill system in roguish ways. (See what I did there? )
Well, I don't think "monkeying with the skill die" is quite the same thing as "monkeying with the skill system". They're already using it to a degree on the Fighter with Parry, where "Skill Die" is used just to give a scaling numerical representation of "skill", not necessarily linked to Skills.
And while, yes, "some kind of ability that lets you spend your skill die for effects" sounds very similar to the Rogue's Skill Tricks, I think there are (or could be) two major distinctions. First, these abilities would be completely divorced from Skills, both conceptually and mechanically. You could seriously stretch it, and say that all of them are related to the Knowledge: Warfare (or Tactics, or whatever it is) Skill, but, like I said, it's something of a stretch. Second, whereas the Rogue's Skill Tricks are focused on affecting yourself or an enemy, the Warlord's abilities would be focused on affecting an ally or an enemy.
Differentiating from the Bard, beyond simply "Is it a spellcaster?", would be a little tougher - but I think only because we just don't really know what either class (Bard or Warlord) will really look like. Once we have one, the other shouldn't be too difficult to imagine the scope of - unless they take that one class and make it incredibly over-broad both mechanically and conceptually.
Personally, I would make an "Active vs. Passive" distinction. The Warlord would be designed primarily around active abilities - around using features to create immediate, short-lived, and focused effects. The Bard would be designed primarily around passive abilities - around using features to create long- or even persistent-duration effects across a broad range (usually whole groups).
No idea how you would actually implement that, especially if both "Warlord Leadership" and "Bardic Musicianship" were both conceptually tied directly to the Skill Die. Perhaps the more focused abilities of the Warlord might allow for multiple Skill Dice when used (like the Fighter is going to have multiple "Weapon Dice"), while the Bard would simply affect more targets? No idea, just brainstorming here.
So, with that all said, what the hell am I actually thinking of? Well, I think "Skill Tricks" are probably the best model we have, at the moment. Whatever the Fighter is going to look like may also be highly informative... but we just don't know what that is in great enough detail (or great enough detail for me to care).
Honestly, we just don't know... but it's fun to talk about it!
I'll put my own thoughts in a different post, to keep this one manageable (and sort of focussed?).
Have at it!