Why do people care? (or, "How the Warlord got his groove back")

The recent podcast has started a whole slew of arguing, and rather than bog down the official threads with a discussion on one aspect of the whole podcast, I'd like to know the following:

Why do people care if the Warlord is its own class?

I love 4e, and I love the Warlord as much as the next guy, and would like to see it represented in Next. But I don't really care if they do that under the name "fighter." As long as you can play the same character, it seems the only difference is in the name of the class. Which isn't even considered "fluff" because the name of the mechanics tied to your character DOES NOT determine what you need to be called in-game. 

The only legitimate argument I've heard is for the sake of consistency, since Paladin can mostly be covered in cleric. Fair enough, but lack of consistency is no reason to get all bent out of shape. 

I really would like to understand why this is such a big deal to people. 

I believe it is that some people care what the Warlord mechanically represents.  You'd get the same reaction if you told people you were folding the Fighter, the Rogue, and the Ranger into one class because they are basically just normal dudes who stab and shoot things.


Doing the same to the Warlord kind of dilutes what it is; a martial healing and party buffing class.

@mikemearls The office is basically empty this week, which opens up all sorts of possibilities for low shenanigans

@mikemearls In essence, all those arguments I lost are being unlost. Won, if you will. We're doing it MY way, baby.

@biotech66 aren't you the boss anyway? isn't "DO IT OR I FIRE YOU!" still an option?

@mikemearls I think Perkins would throat punch me if I ever tried that. And I'd give him a glowing quarterly review for it.

From what I've gathered reading what people say on the matter I think it comes down to being able to heal without wielding magic. Also, a class that lets others do things for them. At least this is what it seems to me.

They also seem to feel that there is nothing you can do to the fighter to make him a warlord.

The warlord is not just a fighter, he is a leader, both as a 4e role, and as a concept. His tactically superior mind allows him to set up oppertunities for someone else to do even more damage, even if he himself doesn't do any.

The warlord is the general, the fighter is the soldier.

This is just the impression I get from others.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I myself think it's unique enough in scope that it should have its own resource management and progression. Better MDD than the cleric, but worse than the fighter, with some encounter and dailies tossed in for healing, or whatever. I've seen a few posts where people are talking about temp hit points instead of healing. I think maybe the warlord doesn't heal, but prevents damage instead. There is little difference between casting a spell to repair 5 hp, and using an ability that lowers damage taken by 5hp.

An example, a warlord should have a reaction that allows another character to take a reaction even if they already have for the round. Effectively, the Warlord could stand back, and give the front line fighter 2 reactions per round. He can AoO anyone that grants an AoO to anyone in the room.
Because the warlord is not a fighter, and it is not a bard.  Yes, there is overlap.  But it's not either of those things.


Warlords are front line, but they are not a master of weapons.  (closer to cleric damage).
Warlords are inspiring, but they do not use magic.  (more like rogue skill tricks).
Warlords forcus on tactics, which no other class does.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

Well for one thing OP, the Fighter class as-is doesn't make sense as a Warlord chassis. The Warlord doesn't need damage dice, weapon bonuses, etc, and it surely doesn't need Strength as a primary stat, or even heavy armor. You should be able to build a Warlord that relies primarily on Intelligence, that can order/support party from front or back lines, in light or heavy armor, with melee or ranged attacks. It just doesn't fit. I mean, by Mearls argument, everything that isn't a magic-user could be lumped into the Fighter class. That is ugly, lazy design.
I think for me part of my disappointment with what was on the podcast was how they seemed to want to once again take an idea from 4e and fold spindle and mutilate it until it is a pale neutered shadow of itself.  Just as with healing surges and their hd mechanic what they've given me shows me that they really don't understand and or care what was loved about 4e.

If paladins, rangers and barbarians are different enough from the fighter to deserve their own class warlord certainly is.
Again, I personally don't care if its a class or not, this is more just devil's advocate. Specifically to Alynn, I absolutely agree it deserves a class with a unique resource, but that's more because I hate how many classes use MDD or WDD currently, because it now seems less unique (see "boring"). Regardless, devil's advocate:

@JaySims, No one is saying the Fighter "as-is" is a Warlord. (Nevermind the fact that the fighter "as-is" isn't even a fighter, since it's getting heavily revised.) Don't need Strength as Primary? Don't take it. Don't need Damage Dice? Spend dice on maneuvers that let you shift allies, heal people, etc. If you do that, I've literally solved every one of the problems you listed. (Take Int, no need for str, wear whatever armor you want, use a bow, order/support allies with maneuvers.)

@mellored, No master of weapons is impossible with the Fighter, I'll give you that. But no magic to heal? Check. Focus on tactics? That's a combination of maneuvers an roleplaying, so check.

@Alynn, If the issue is about what it represents mechanically, you can still fit that into fighter, just add the mechanics. Class name means nothing. You can easily sacrifice damage potential with weapons for healing and tactics oriented maneuvers and abilities. 

My point in saying this is that people are freaking out and saying that "This is the last straw, I QUIT D&D Next!" But the game is far from done, and we haven't even seen the class yet, so let's take a step back and relax.
Why do people care if the Warlord is its own class?


Because:

  1. I believe the concept is too large to be reduced to a single fighting style (which is where it is currently intended to be)

  2. In the last L&L article, Mearls said they don't intend to expand any given fighting style with new specialties or feats.  The example given is archer.  if you want to play an archer, you take the archer speciality and ranged maneuvers. There is no intent to make a second set of archery-related feats or maneuvers.


For me, this means that there the entirety of the warlord will be encapsulated in five maneuvers and four feats and that's all.  I don't think those are sufficient mechanics to represent the many types of warlords and for that reason it should be a class.  I think there are at least three warlord "styles" and possibly more when you get into esoteric stuff like the hector and the lazylord.

My guess is that the warlord-style will simply be one power that lets an ally attack off-turn, one power that lets an ally parry off-turn, one power improves allies' attacks when they target a designated enemy, one power that offers a generic bonus to all allies, and one high-level power that lets all allies attack off-turn.  

I waited 30 years to get to play this type of character and I don't think I'm ever going to get to play it again, unless I design an entire class myself.  That makes me sad.
Well for one thing OP, the Fighter class as-is doesn't make sense as a Warlord chassis. The Warlord doesn't need damage dice, weapon bonuses, etc, and it surely doesn't need Strength as a primary stat, or even heavy armor. You should be able to build a Warlord that relies primarily on Intelligence, that can order/support party from front or back lines, in light or heavy armor, with melee or ranged attacks. It just doesn't fit. I mean, by Mearls argument, everything that isn't a magic-user could be lumped into the Fighter class. That is ugly, lazy design.



As someone who really wanted to pay a Fighter/Warlord, I have to agree.

Right now, with no skills, no class features outside of Maneuevers, and only 5 maneuvers to work with over 20 levels, it's hard enough to build a Fighter concept within the Fighter. It would be impossible to build a multi classed concept within the Fighter, and not that easy to build a Warlord only concept.
Race for the Iron Throne - political and historical analysis of A Song of Ice and Fire.
The chassis of the class is completely different from the fighter. Now, I personally have never been crazy about the class, but that's the gist of the argument from people who ARE fans of the class.
Color me flattered.

LIFE CYCLE OF A RULES THREAD

Show
Thank_Dog wrote:

2Chlorobutanal wrote:
I think that if you have to argue to convince others about the clarity of something, it's probably not as objectively clear as you think.

No, what it means is that some people just like to be obtuse.

If 4e showed us anyhitng, it showed us how important "roles" are for giving focus to a class. I think 4e botched on implementation, but roles definitely gave a sense of direction to the various classes unlike ever before.

The reason I want warlord to be a class (or subclass) is the same reason I want the "Defender" fighter to be a subclass of the fighter. It is impossible to have all the needed mechanics to make a "support" role class by simply choosing a maneuver here and a feat there. A class needs to be built from the ground up towards its design goals.

This is where 5e is failing hard. The fighter has no class features, only maneuvers. This will never allow for a Striker-Fighter, a Defender-Fighter, or a Support-Fighter. It requires much more than maneuvers for these concepts to be reached. Right now the fighters lack of focus is causing every possible incarnation of fighting man to be piled onto it, which only serves to water down each concept into unplayability.
@mellored, No master of weapons is impossible with the Fighter, I'll give you that. But no magic to heal? Check. Focus on tactics? That's a combination of maneuvers an roleplaying, so check.

I didn't say anything about healing.  IMO, warlords should let you fight below 0.

Inspiring Word:  Allies who are reduced to 0 hit points while within 10' feat of you do not fall unconcious.  This last for as many rounds as your charisma modifier.  If they take an action, they make their death save wtih disavantage.  They can still die as usual.


But bards have magic.  Fighters have weapons (damage).  Warlords don't have either.  So they won't fit in either class.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.


@JaySims, No one is saying the Fighter "as-is" is a Warlord. (Nevermind the fact that the fighter "as-is" isn't even a fighter, since it's getting heavily revised.) Don't need Strength as Primary? Don't take it. Don't need Damage Dice? Spend dice on maneuvers that let you shift allies, heal people, etc. If you do that, I've literally solved every one of the problems you listed. (Take Int, no need for str, wear whatever armor you want, use a bow, order/support allies with maneuvers.)

.


Seems like square peg-round hole to me. I think it would be cleaner and more intuitive, especially in character creation, to separate the Warlord as a class. And you didn't really address everything. There is no need for the Warlord to have built in Weapon Mastery/Expertise (whatever they call it these days), or do get static damage bonuses later. Rather than have to "transform" everything into a Warlord version, why not just have a Warlord? I can appreciate your argument, hopefully you can do the same for mine. It just doesn't seem an ideal way to approach the class. It feels clumsy and "tacked-on". I don't think the MDD is an ideal mechanic for the Warlord either; I personally would prefer something that feels more like Domains or Schemes mechanically. But I digress.
I suppose it's possible that bards won't have magic as a core feature.  And thus a martial/tactical bard might work.

But i think every bard had spells. 

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.


This is where 5e is failing hard. The fighter has no class features, only maneuvers. This will never allow for a Striker-Fighter, a Defender-Fighter, or a Support-Fighter. It requires much more than maneuvers for these concepts to be reached. Right now the fighters lack of focus is causing every possible incarnation of fighting man to be piled onto it, which only serves to water down each concept into unplayability.



Not quite. The major problem ATM is that the maneuvers aren't sufficiently useful/effective enough to really differentiate the Fughting Styles that exist currently, there aren't enough of them, and the individual character doesn't get enough to really develop a concept.

For example, I want to play a mercenary captain who trained as a knight, so I want battlefield mobility and control maneuvers (getting to where he wants to go first and pushing the enemy out of formation as his basis of training), but I also want a good selection of swordsmanship and defenders stuff (since he's trained in formal sword techniques, so he should know how to disarm people and the like, and he's keenly aware of the need to protect his ranged specialists), and some Warlorish stuff to emphasize his role as a military officer.

Cant do that with 5 maneuvers: at a minimum, I'd want Lunge (mechanically subpar), Charge (currently a feat), Knock Down (mechanically subpar), Shove Away (ditto), Disarm (ditto), Protect (although Shield Bash or Hold the Line would be more evocative), and at least 2-3 Warlordstuff aneuvers (definitely want grant movement, grant attack, and grant advantage on the person I attack).

That's a compact list of nine abilities, most of which aren't mechanically up to scratch at the moment, a bunch of which don't exist, and some of which are feats and shouldn't be. 
Race for the Iron Throne - political and historical analysis of A Song of Ice and Fire.
I suppose it's possible that bards won't have magic as a core feature.  And thus a martial/tactical bard might work.

But i think every bard had spells. 

Given that "inertia" is Next's only meaningful design principle (with "Ctrl-V" as its implementation ethos), it's all but certain. Bards probably should be magical as a default, though, as that's, I feel, a big part of what the class has going on. I can see and would appreciate a sort of "lightly magical" bard that doesn't explicitly cast spells from a big list of spells they know but instead is just kind of supernatural, but even that's not something I really expect.

Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
I suppose it's possible that bards won't have magic as a core feature.  And thus a martial/tactical bard might work.

But i think every bard had spells. 

It definitely feels like the core assumption of the bard is shifting away from 'singing wizard' -- for which I am ecstatic.

Danny

I suppose it's possible that bards won't have magic as a core feature.  And thus a martial/tactical bard might work.

But i think every bard had spells. 

Given that "inertia" is Next's only meaningful design principle (with "Ctrl-V" as its implementation ethos), it's all but certain. Bards probably should be magical as a default, though, as that's, I feel, a big part of what the class has going on. I can see and would appreciate a sort of "lightly magical" bard that doesn't explicitly cast spells from a big list of spells they know but instead is just kind of supernatural, but even that's not something I really expect.

The bard in my mind's eye is inspiring first, skillful second, battle-savvy third, and spellcastery as an addendum.

The bard's ability to cast spells has never been central to it's identity -- an intrinsic part of his identity, but not central to what a bard 'is'.

The outcry I'm bracing for is when the healing aspects of the bard present themselves as an aspect of their inspiration/music mechanic. Since the inspiration/music may not be inherently magical (in the 'cast a spell' sense), the warlord conversation will be rekindled with a fire unlike we've ever seen.

Danny


Not quite. The major problem ATM is that the maneuvers aren't sufficiently useful/effective enough to really differentiate the Fughting Styles that exist currently, there aren't enough of them, and the individual character doesn't get enough to really develop a concept.

For example, I want to play a mercenary captain who trained as a knight, so I want battlefield mobility and control maneuvers (getting to where he wants to go first and pushing the enemy out of formation as his basis of training), but I also want a good selection of swordsmanship and defenders stuff (since he's trained in formal sword techniques, so he should know how to disarm people and the like, and he's keenly aware of the need to protect his ranged specialists), and some Warlorish stuff to emphasize his role as a military officer.

Cant do that with 5 maneuvers: at a minimum, I'd want Lunge (mechanically subpar), Charge (currently a feat), Knock Down (mechanically subpar), Shove Away (ditto), Disarm (ditto), Protect (although Shield Bash or Hold the Line would be more evocative), and at least 2-3 Warlordstuff aneuvers (definitely want grant movement, grant attack, and grant advantage on the person I attack).

That's a compact list of nine abilities, most of which aren't mechanically up to scratch at the moment, a bunch of which don't exist, and some of which are feats and shouldn't be. 



Nice character ability synopsis, I like
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

I don't get it.  Warlord (although, again, I hate the actual name of the class) is a good concept, and a well-liked class.  If they were cutting the barbarian and the monk as non-traditional classes, well then I wouldn't say anything.  If this was a cleric, rogue, fighter, wizard game then fine.  There have been so many decisions that have made it look like Mearls and Crew are just trying to bury anything that smells like 4e.

If there is a concept that feels like a good niche and could fill a unique role, put it in.  Once something diverges enough, it should become its own class.  Barbarian in 2e was just a fighter variant.  They are very similar classes still, but the barbarian has its own unique feel so it gets its own class to explore that.  I don't think you need a "Swordsman" class or a "Hoplite" class.  These can be covered by variants.

The main determinant factor when making this decision should be the answer to the following:  What ability/abilities most defines this class-concept?  Is this ability/abilities covered by a pre-existing class?  If so, make the class a variant instead.  If not, make a new class.

You want to make the Warlord:
What most defines the class-concept?   The ability to give battle orders that apply benefits to allies coupled with martial weapon and armor training.
Is that covered by a pre-existing class?  Well martial weapon and armor training are, but that is not a class-defining ability for any other class as it is shared acros many martial classes.
Should the class-concept be a variant?  Potentially.  A bard may have mechanically similar effects, but would have to lose spellcasting.  
Are the bard and warlord to disparate to be married into a class/sub-class relationship?  Not necessarily, but it is a large enough jump to justify a new class. (high level martial training vs low level.  Assumed frontline combatant vs second line.  Caster vs. Noncaster.  Music vs. Commands.  Heavy armor vs. light armor.)
Result?  The best option for characterizing the Warlord class-concept is to make it its own class. 


Nice character ability synopsis, I like



Thanks!
Race for the Iron Throne - political and historical analysis of A Song of Ice and Fire.
Are the bard and warlord to disparate to be married into a class/sub-class relationship?  Not necessarily, but it is a large enough jump to justify a new class. (high level martial training vs low level.  Assumed frontline combatant vs second line.  Caster vs. Noncaster.  Music vs. Commands.  Heavy armor vs. light armor.)

Many warlords had light armor, as bards may have been in heavy.  So give them medium and your set.

Also, not all warlords where in the front line, and not all bards in the back.  So that's not an issue either.

So your down to Caster/Noncaster as the biggest sticking point.  With commands/music being a secondary issue.  It's possible to fix finagle things.  But it depends on what bard fans really want.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.


Seems like square peg-round hole to me. I think it would be cleaner and more intuitive, especially in character creation, to separate the Warlord as a class. And you didn't really address everything. There is no need for the Warlord to have built in Weapon Mastery/Expertise (whatever they call it these days), or do get static damage bonuses later. Rather than have to "transform" everything into a Warlord version, why not just have a Warlord? I can appreciate your argument, hopefully you can do the same for mine. It just doesn't seem an ideal way to approach the class. It feels clumsy and "tacked-on". I don't think the MDD is an ideal mechanic for the Warlord either; I personally would prefer something that feels more like Domains or Schemes mechanically. But I digress.



Oh, I can absolutely appreciate where you're coming from. Personally, I'd like to see the Warlord as a class that uses a system, much like the Rogue Skill Tricks, but on a party-wide scale. So he can give everyone advantage, or bonuses, in certain situations when expending his skill die. That, to me, is what the Warlord is all about, not being good at very much himself, but motivating others to achieve success beyond what they would be capable of alone.
I suppose it's possible that bards won't have magic as a core feature.  And thus a martial/tactical bard might work.

But i think every bard had spells. 

It definitely feels like the core assumption of the bard is shifting away from 'singing wizard' -- for which I am ecstatic.




Personaly i hope they would use the essentials skald as their starting point for the bard.
Well okay mello, but if you're willing to do that level of smooshing stuff together then there's really no popint in having any class besides fighter and caster is there.
The recent podcast has started a whole slew of arguing, and rather than bog down the official threads with a discussion on one aspect of the whole podcast, I'd like to know the following:

Why do people care if the Warlord is its own class?

It's a really good class.  It's far too different from the traditional fighter to do well as some speciality or sub-class or to be burried in some module somewhere.  Its not just the players who really like the concept, either, but the game, itself, that benefits.  Having a non-magical "healer" available allows for whole, lower-magic or non-magic genres and playstyles.  For a game like Next, with a primary goal of "inclusiveness," that's absolutely vital.

I love 4e, and I love the Warlord as much as the next guy, and would like to see it represented in Next.

I think there is also a sort of litmus test going on, here.  I missed most of the "edition wars" and look forward to Next re-unifying D&D, but there are still a lot of distrust and suspicion out there.  I can see it just reading the forums.  Dropping or demoting the Warlord, in addition to not doing the class justice, could also be seen as an open rejection of those fans who prefered 4e.  


- Warlords! Join the 'Officer Country' Group! Join Grognards for 4e, the D&D that changed D&D.


D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium

Well okay mello, but if you're willing to do that level of smooshing stuff together then there's really no popint in having any class besides fighter and caster is there.

That would have been the smart way to design D&D from the beginning, yes.

@mikemearls The office is basically empty this week, which opens up all sorts of possibilities for low shenanigans

@mikemearls In essence, all those arguments I lost are being unlost. Won, if you will. We're doing it MY way, baby.

@biotech66 aren't you the boss anyway? isn't "DO IT OR I FIRE YOU!" still an option?

@mikemearls I think Perkins would throat punch me if I ever tried that. And I'd give him a glowing quarterly review for it.


  Its not just the players who really like the concept, either, but the game, itself, that benefits.  Having a non-magical "healer" available allows for whole, lower-magic or non-magic genres and playstyles.  For a game like Next, with a primary goal of "inclusiveness," that's absolutely vital.



But i would like to see alternative healing being wider then limited to one class.

Imagine that there was a healer specialty that was good enough to be the main healer in a party.
so when it comes to healing you could have one of the traditional healer classes like the cleric or a person of any other class that has this healing background.
And it could be re fluffed in all kind of ways.

the monk healer who with his knowlage of ki re directs the flow of ki in peoples bodys to heal them using acupuncture.

  Its not just the players who really like the concept, either, but the game, itself, that benefits.  Having a non-magical "healer" available allows for whole, lower-magic or non-magic genres and playstyles.  For a game like Next, with a primary goal of "inclusiveness," that's absolutely vital.

But i would like to see alternative healing being wider then limited to one class.

You could have every character able to heal himself in combat as well as out of combat.  You could give them some sort of resource to manage that healing.  "Healer" classes could tap that resource instead of burning their own precisous spells.





 
- Warlords! Join the 'Officer Country' Group! Join Grognards for 4e, the D&D that changed D&D.


D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium


But i would like to see alternative healing being wider then limited to one class.



I find myself wanting alternative interesting "help" and "hinder" mechanics broadly available too.

  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

Well okay mello, but if you're willing to do that level of smooshing stuff together then there's really no popint in having any class besides fighter and caster is there.

My first choice is for it's own class, sure.

But if that's not happening, then i'm comming up with secondary ideas, instead of just wineing that i didn't get my way.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

Sorry guys I like the warlord as a speciality of Fighter. King Arthur, Faramir and  Captain America are warriors first and foremost. 
While I understand the worry and bad feelings many have with warlord becoming part of fighter, this is atually something I am okay with (as someone who enjoys playing warlords in 4e). While people may debate the light vs heavy armor of warlords, in base 4e warlord's were proficient with heavy armor - that was their thing. They were also given martial weapon proficiency. Really, they were just a slight step down from fighter, and were seperated weapon-wise by abilities and a +1 to hit that fighters got. So all the complaints about now having a warlord in fighter armor with fighter weapons really doesn't make sense.

As for having damage dice/damage bonuses, the Cleric has both of those at the moment, so there is absolutely no reason for the warlord to not get them, even if one wanted to advocate for a different progresion from the fighter. Minus healing, and assuming they a) fix maneuvers and b) actually give useful packages of class features for different style fighters (I had been talking with friends about the idea of having 3 packages of class features with "Guardian" giving defender aura, etc, "Slayer" giving bonus damage, etc, and "Warlord" giving our good old warlordy features).

They could TOTALLY botch this horribly, but I think they could also totally get it to work. And, in some ways, my biggest advocacy for warlord as part of fighter is for what it does to fighter: it gives the fighter access to battlefield command, which REALLY deepens what the fighter can do. It really feels right for a fighter who is not a full fledged warlord to still be able to give occassional tactical assistance.

That being said, the part that caused me to raise an eyebrow was the whole discussion regarding healing. All of the other person's comments regarding a warlord as "not a healer" revolved around the mending of actual, grievous physical injury. However, it was made very clear in previous editions and in the current DDN playtest description that HP is not all physical and that healing has noticeable parts re-inspiration and re-invigoration (which make sense because NO CHARACTER could take the physical abuse that DnD characters do after about level 2, maybe 3 tops, and not die horribly; people die when they are stabbed once, much less half a dozen times, by a sword). And Mearls mentioned William Wallace doing very much the warlord, abstract HP healing, and the other guy totally missed the point and continued with the whole idea of healing = physical regeneration at which point Mearls just agreed and never defended the whole abtract HP thing, and more or less said that non-magical healing is dead. I understand that many people view HP as purely physical, and even my own group always describes a 'Hit' as an attack that makes contact and crits will be bloody, but that is NOT the mechanical intention and in order for the game to play smoothly, being able to heal outside of clerics (or druids) is really, really important. That is one of the BIGGEST steps forward that 4e took, one that my group, knowing already how unrealistic damage portrayal was, embraced fully.

My only other quick comments are that Bard is intrinsically magical, even if they are not casting wizard spells, because they are explicitly supposed to be lacing their song/perfomance with magic, and that is what gives the bard his or her power. Also, very interested to hear Wizards' idea of putting the components for group roles in the feats/specialties. I think it could be pretty cool if they do it right; though it will be tough because it will be easy to make them pretty awful.
My argument for why building the warlord as a fighter doesn't work:

Peyton Manning

Good but not great physical skills but can disect an opponent with the power of his mind. Makes the whole team better just by being there.

building as a fighter you get Michael Vick or Tim Tebow, great physical skills but can't make the rest of the team awesome just by thier presence.
While I understand the worry and bad feelings many have with warlord becoming part of fighter, this is atually something I am okay with (as someone who enjoys playing warlords in 4e). While people may debate the light vs heavy armor of warlords, in base 4e warlord's were proficient with heavy armor - that was their thing. They were also given martial weapon proficiency. Really, they were just a slight step down from fighter, and were seperated weapon-wise by abilities and a +1 to hit that fighters got. So all the complaints about now having a warlord in fighter armor with fighter weapons really doesn't make sense.

 

Uh...they also didn't have any of the Fighter powers. 


Race for the Iron Throne - political and historical analysis of A Song of Ice and Fire.
The thing is, if there are enough options of Warlord-like maneuvers for Fighters, I'd be fine with the Warlord being a Fighter. 

My real question, which I've asked elsewhere, is what role Hit Points play in the game, and whether healing should be innately magical or if there is room for inspiring someone to stand up, even as injured, to be interpreted as "healing hit points" – that would allow non-magical healing, but it would mitigate the "specialness" of magical healing.  Then again, herbalism might mitigate that specialness.  I don't know. 

Before posting, why not ask yourself, What Would Wrecan Say?

IMAGE(http://images.onesite.com/community.wizards.com/user/marandahir/thumb/9ac5d970f3a59330212c73baffe4c556.png?v=90000)

A great man once said "If WotC put out boxes full of free money there'd still be people complaining about how it's folded." – Boraxe

Why do people care if the Warlord is its own class?



I can think of only 2 reasons why people would want the warlord to be it's own class:

1) Support. If the warlord is his own class, that means that they will recieve full support for the archetypes they represent. If the warlord is dilluted into the fighter class, there probably won't be as much support for that sub-class. If the warlord is your favorite class, you want warlord options and a fully supported warlord class.

2) Broad classes. Some people like to have broad classes that represent a wide array of archetypes. Some people actually think there should only be 2 classes: warrior and magic-users.


Is there really that much controversy on whether the warlord should be a class or not? I thought the main point of discordance was whether there should be martial healing or not.
My only other quick comments are that Bard is intrinsically magical, even if they are not casting wizard spells, because they are explicitly supposed to be lacing their song/perfomance with magic, and that is what gives the bard his or her power. Also, very interested to hear Wizards' idea of putting the components for group roles in the feats/specialties. I think it could be pretty cool if they do it right; though it will be tough because it will be easy to make them pretty awful.

The music of the bard, in all of its iterations, has never been described as magical.

It has been supernatural, spell-like, and charming through the editions -- yes -- but not explicitly magical.

Specifically, the music of bards has been described as 'having a magic all its own', but that magic is up to the player to determine (i.e. it is fully justifiable as a mundane effect).

Danny

My only other quick comments are that Bard is intrinsically magical, even if they are not casting wizard spells, because they are explicitly supposed to be lacing their song/perfomance with magic, and that is what gives the bard his or her power. Also, very interested to hear Wizards' idea of putting the components for group roles in the feats/specialties. I think it could be pretty cool if they do it right; though it will be tough because it will be easy to make them pretty awful.

The music of the bard, in all of its iterations, has never been described as magical.

It has been supernatural, spell-like, and charming through the editions -- yes -- but not explicitly magical.

Specifically, the music of bards has been described as 'having a magic all its own', but that magic is up to the player to determine (i.e. it is fully justifiable as a mundane effect).


WRT Bards,
A very common example is tolkeins stories .. "The Song of Creation"
thats not abnormal in large parts of myth music underpines reality .. to a serious level all music is "magic"
Chant / incantation .... enchantment... mean music.  Every wizard may be seen as doing poetry/music
Maybe the word magic is the result of a typo?
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

My argument for why building the warlord as a fighter doesn't work:

Peyton Manning

Good but not great physical skills but can disect an opponent with the power of his mind. Makes the whole team better just by being there.

building as a fighter you get Michael Vick or Tim Tebow, great physical skills but can't make the rest of the team awesome just by thier presence.


So why not let the fighter do either? Therefore he can do either Peyton or Vick, or he can even choose an inbetween level. I don't see how they couldn't work well together.
My two copper.
I actually think conflating the Warlord with the Fighter could help the Fighter out in the long-run as well, giving him some more skillful abilities that Fighter-players have been clamouring for.

Before posting, why not ask yourself, What Would Wrecan Say?

IMAGE(http://images.onesite.com/community.wizards.com/user/marandahir/thumb/9ac5d970f3a59330212c73baffe4c556.png?v=90000)

A great man once said "If WotC put out boxes full of free money there'd still be people complaining about how it's folded." – Boraxe

Sign In to post comments