In Summary: Why the Warlord should be a Class in Next

Pulling together all the evidence and arguments from the various threads on the topic to date there are several good reasons why we SHOULD see a Warlord class:


1: A significant number of D&D fans want to play a pure non-magical combat leader. 

2: The Warlord allows the realisation of a common trope within fantasy novels, TV and film to be realised.

3: There are a wide range of interesting mechanical possibilities which the class could realise (many of which are likely too powerful for feats).

4: It would be a nod to the fans of 4th Edition that not everything which made up the D&D they love is being thrown under a bus.

5.  It gives a non-magical alternative to spellcaster healing, allowing low- or no- magic campaigns to be run without extensive re-working or re-balancing.


6: Because the leader of men class has been part of D&D for over 10 years now. We've had warlord-like classes in 3rd edition with the Marshal, Warblade and Crusader.

7: It is good for D&D as a game to include players from as many editions as possible and it will encourage this if the classes from every PHB(1) are included in the PHB for Next.


This will allow us to play with the 11 minimum Warlord features:

1: Grant advantage to the next attack made by an ally (and the Warlord also attacks).  
2: Give an ally a bonus "free" attack with extra damage. 
3: Grant bonuses (or advantage) to initiative checks. 
4: Give an ally a "free" move (and the Warlord also attacks). 
5: Give an ally a save against an ongoing effect (and the Warlord also attacks). 
6: Use an interrupt to reduce damage to an ally. 
7: Restore lost HP to an ally (and the Warlord also attacks). 
8: Improve out-of-combat healing. 
9: Allow and ally to move and attack off-turn. 
10: Grant an ally a "free" attack with NO bonuses (and the Warlord also attacks). 
11: Give an ally a bonus to damage on their next attack (and the Warlord also attacks).

And allow us to fully express the 5 key Warlord archetypes:


Practitioner


The warlord who is most concerned with maintaining and boosting his allies and keeping them in the fight. This warlord specializes in martial healing, granting temporary hit points, resistance to damage, and ending conditions. He does this through a combination of first aid, improvement to morale, and an intimate knowledge of how a body can adjust to and react to combat situations.  
Signature Power: Martial Healing

Vanguard



A warlord who leads by example.  He attacks enemies in ways that show allies how to fight them more effectively.  This manifests as the warlord hitting a foe, thus granting allies a bonus to either hitting that same foe or hitting a similar foe (as in "Here's how you take down a giant!").  
Signature PowerImpose a condition that encourages allies to attack that target.

Grandmaster



A warlord who spots tactical weaknesses in position and directs allies on how to get the most advantageous position. This usually manifests as free movement, extra benefits from positioning, or off-turn parries.  
Signature PowerGrant allies off-turn movement.

Captain



This is the warlord who oversees a battle and directs the allies to give them benefits to their attacks. Unlike the vanguard, who exploits  an enemy's weakness, the captain deals primarily with his ally's own strengths, granting off-turn actions, added damage, or bonuses to attempts to trip, grapple, etc.  
Signature PowerGrant allies off-turn attacks.

Hector



Rather than use his strategy to boost allies, he uses it to demoralize and disarray his enemies. With choreographed attacks that are designed to be as demoralizing as they are damaging, he causes enemies to miss opportunity (attacks), take penalties to hit or damage, or to incur fear-based conditions. Like the vanguard, his powers trigger off attacks, but unlike the vanguard, his attacks are meant to affect other enemies, rather than his allies.  
Signature Power: Hit an enemy and impose a condition on nearby allies of that enemy. 


Together those are MORE than reason enough to justify a class. 

I'm still hopeful that we will see all the classes from every PHB. 

Heck I even think that they could do an interesting and engaging Assassin (using shadow) and Illusionist (using shapeshifting and mental effects) without treading on the toes of the Rogue or Wizard.












Pulling together all the evidence and arguments from the various threads on the topic to date there are several good reasons why we SHOULD see a Warlord class:


1: A significant number of D&D fans want to play a pure non-magical combat leader. 




That's all the reason I need. 

"Ah, the age-old conundrum. Defenders of a game are too blind to see it's broken, and critics are too idiotic to see that it isn't." - Brian McCormick

Pulling together all the evidence and arguments from the various threads on the topic to date there are several good reasons why we SHOULD see a Warlord class:


1: A significant number of D&D fans want to play a pure non-magical combat leader. 




That's all the reason I need. 



Me too, personally.

But there's a LOT of opposition out there for some inexplicable reason.

So it is important to present a clear and well supported case.

It makes it easier to demonstrate that the opposition is irrational when there are a range of rational arguments in favour. 
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Me too, personally.

But there's a LOT of opposition out there for some inexplicable reason.

So it is important to present a clear and well supported case.

It makes it easier to demonstrate that the opposition is irrational when there are a range of rational arguments in favour. 

Of course, two rational people can start from different premises and rationally reach conflicting conclusions. The heated HP debates boil down to essentially that.

I recall getting into a healing debate with you on these boards a number of months ago, and you claimed your position there was not only entirely rational, but the only one that made any sense at all. If I remember correctly you even insulted the intelligence of myself and others for holding a different view to yourself. You've since changed your tune on the issue, and come around to something very similar to the stance I was arguing for in the first place. If I absolutely have to dig up quotes I will, but it probably won't help this thread at all.

So -  claims of rationality don't necessarily make an argument rational. Likewise, calling somebody elses argument irrational doesn't necesarily make it so; especially if they are working from a different set of assumptions than you are. Finally, claiming you're right doesn't have the effect of making you right.

====================================================

That aside, I think this is a really good idea for a thread. Good on you for presenting an argument for your position and I hope the developers take note of it. This is probably the best thing you could do to make sure they do. Smile

I have no issue with Warlords having a place in D&DN. I have some preferences in their methods of healing, but won't be heartbroken if my wishes don't make the final cut.

I also have no issue with them being a subclass of fighter as long as the options exist to make something suitably warlordesque out of it.  My personal image of a warlord is more akin to a seargent than a general, as in most cases as generals are considerably less likely to live their lives on the front lines and go off adventuring with a bunch of misfits for fame and fortune. I expect seargents to have fighting skills comparable to their men. If warlords come out eventually as a seperate class then I've got no problem with that either though as it's just one of the realities of game design.

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/12.jpg)

This will allow us to play with the 11 minimum Warlord features:

1: Grant advantage to the next attack made by an ally (and the Warlord also attacks).  
2: Give an ally a bonus "free" attack with extra damage. 
3: Grant bonuses (or advantage) to initiative checks. 
4: Give an ally a "free" move (and the Warlord also attacks). 
5: Give an ally a save against an ongoing effect (and the Warlord also attacks). 
6: Use an interrupt to reduce damage to an ally. 
7: Restore lost HP to an ally (and the Warlord also attacks). 
8: Improve out-of-combat healing. 
9: Allow and ally to move and attack off-turn. 
10: Grant an ally a "free" attack with NO bonuses (and the Warlord also attacks). 
11: Give an ally a bonus to damage on their next attack (and the Warlord also attacks).

It is difficult and not always helpful to make lists like this.  The problem is that you are drawing upon the mechanics of 4E to determine what a Warlord needs to be able to do, but these mechanics don't necessarily work in the framework of D&D Next.

To illustrate, take a look at any other class.  For example, the Fighter in 4E gains a bonus to opportunity attacks, causes the target to stop moving on a hit, marks on every attack, etc.  But surely you see how it doesn't make sense to demand that the Fighter in Next gain all of those features.

So while it is great to ask for a Warlord class, and it helps to list the reasons why a Warlord class would make a great addition to the game, I think listing the "11 minimum Warlord features" weakens your argument.  It comes across as an ultimatum: not only do you want a Warlord class, but if it doesn't meet the requirements it won't count.

The trick is finding the core of what makes the Warlord, and then fitting it into the framework of Next.

The point of the 11 features is that you can't just make a "spend your action to grant an action" feat and expect warlord fans to be satisfied - the 4e warlord is a complex, flexible and flavorful class, and it should be translated into an equally full-featured Next class.

You get my vote, Herr Admiral!
The point of the 11 features is that you can't just make a "spend your action to grant an action" feat and expect warlord fans to be satisfied - the 4e warlord is a complex, flexible and flavorful class, and it should be translated into an equally full-featured Next class. You get my vote, Herr Admiral!



Precisely.

If I really wanted to make a list of everything the Warlord did in 4th that was unique it'd run to dozens of features.

But these 11 ARE the heart of the class.

Maybe missing a couple might be ok, but more than a couple are missing then it likely won't make me or the other Warlord fans happy which pretty much means it's failed.




Unfortunately the HP debates are a poor example of two rational groups, because one of the sets of argument (purely physical HP) IS irrational.

But your point is well made, despite the weak example, Landro.

I'm curious which of our several disagreements you are talking about, perhaps you should PM me and let me know what you are on about there.

I'm not sure how the "Warlord as Fighter" can possibly fulfil the needs of the Warlord and still meet the design goal to include unique and iconic class features.  But if they ditch that requirement (or simply ignore it) and build a Fighter which can express those 11 features and 5 archetypes then I will happily play that Fighter.

I just hope the bother to fix the crappy out-of-combat capabilities of the Fighter, otherwise no-one is going to be happy with it Warlord or not. 
Pulling together all the evidence and arguments from the various threads on the topic to date there are several good reasons why we SHOULD see a Warlord class:


1: A significant number of D&D fans want to play a pure non-magical combat leader. 




That's all the reason I need. 



Me too, personally.

But there's a LOT of opposition out there for some inexplicable reason.

So it is important to present a clear and well supported case.

It makes it easier to demonstrate that the opposition is irrational when there are a range of rational arguments in favour. 



There's alot of opposition because there's a significant number of people who don't want to play a game with something like the Warlord in it.

Nor is your case clear or well supported.  You cherry picked your evidence that there's a significant number of people who want it,  using only forums that have rules favorable to 4th edition.  For example,  you did not post anything showing that the Pathfinder players are ok with it.

You haven't demonstrated the opposition is irrational,  you just copied and pasted a closed thread,  that had 40+ pages refuting your assertions.   
If you don't want to play a game with warlords in it, don't allow warlords at your table. This game will be bi on modularity, so if you're going to be OUTRAGED by every option you don't like, you're not going to buy the game anyway. And if book space is the issue, I vote that they cut out all pictures of Mialee and Torek to make room.
There's alot of opposition because there's a significant number of people who don't want to play a game with something like the Warlord in it.


Then those people are free to not play the Warlord in their games.
You cherry picked your evidence that there's a significant number of people who want it,  using only forums that have rules favorable to 4th edition.  

For example,  you did not post anything showing that the Pathfinder players are ok with it.
 



RPG.net and EN World are hardly "favorable to 4th edition", both are dominated by Pathfinder fans.

Further, you may have missed it, but you DO realise that there is a Warlord in Pathfinder right?

So, lol, guess that's an invalid an irrational argument too. 
Well, I guess I'll try at the counter-argument:

1: A significant number of D&D fans want to play a pure non-magical combat leader.


On a similar anecdotal level, a significant number of D&D fans don't want this. The real question to ask is 'why?'.   

2: The Warlord allows the realisation of a common trope within fantasy novels, TV and film to be realised.

All of which are already realised by the 'Fighter' trope or other existing classes, to one degree or another. The archetypal historical 'Warlord' of Attilla the Hun, for example is surely a quality example of a Barbarian? I recall somebody saying that a great example of a Warlord was Aragorn from LotR - yet he was actually a "Ranger", who eventually reclaimed a regal heritage. The point is, a lot of these tropes are already covered by existing Classes. 

The essential aspect of a Warlord is the point of them being an established leader of men - which is counter to the notion of playing from 1st level upwards in D&D tradition. A Warlord ought to be a title granted to a successful leader and conquester, or in D&D parlance when they reach a certain level - not a Class. 

3: There are a wide range of interesting mechanical possibilities which the class could realise (many of which are likely too powerful for feats).

If the Warlord Class is merely desired for a collection of mechanical possibilities, then surely they can be handled through the existing mechanics - just choose a series of Feats, etc, that reflect these types of abilities (and make them available, of course). No need for a whole new Class. 


4: It would be a nod to the fans of 4th Edition that not everything which made up the D&D they love is being thrown under a bus.

This is not really an argument for game design, but more of tribal placation. I'd rather people focus on making a cohesive game then sell it to the masses, rather than the tail wagging the dog all the time.


5.  It gives a non-magical alternative to spellcaster healing, allowing low- or no- magic campaigns to be run without extensive re-working or re-balancing.

Well, again, if it's just mechanical aspects that you are specifically looking for, then they should be integrated into the systems that exist - rather than just contriving a Class to deal with them.

6: Because the leader of men class has been part of D&D for over 10 years now. We've had warlord-like classes in 3rd edition with the Marshal, Warblade and Crusader.

Actually they've existed for over thirty years - with the likes of the Paladin, and indeed Classes like the Barbarian and Fighter who used to be able to call upon retainers at higher levels in older editions. This doesn't constititute the need for a Warlord Class.

7: It is good for D&D as a game to include players from as many editions as possible and it will encourage this if the classes from every PHB(1) are included in the PHB for Next.

True, but the game designers shouldn't be held to ransom - if they can show a better way of achieveing similar roles in a way that doesn't make other fans go "eh!" then it should make for a more inclusive game. 




There's alot of opposition because there's a significant number of people who don't want to play a game with something like the Warlord in it.


Then those people are free to not play the Warlord in their games.




what if I want the concept in my game, but do not want it in a warlord class? what if i think it fits better in fighter? or bard, or a combination of both, or fighter and a legacy that especially accents the battle leader aspects in a different way in addition to the fighter born features?
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true">On a similar anecdotal level, a significant number of D&D fans don't want this. The real question to ask is 'why?'.  


Because there's a noticeable amount of people who want it in the game, that alone should be enough reason to at least make an attempt to put it in the game.

People who don't want it? No one's forcing them to play the Warlord.

If the Warlord Class is merely desired for a collection of mechanical possibilities, then surely they can be handled through the existing mechanics - just choose a series of Feats, etc, that reflect these types of abilities (and make them available, of course). No need for a whole new Class.
This would be fine if they are willing to give the Paladin, Bard, and Barbarian, at minimum, the same treatment, considering the exact logic against the Warlord being a full class applies to those three classes as well.

Pulling together all the evidence and arguments from the various threads on the topic to date there are several good reasons why we SHOULD see a Warlord class:


1: A significant number of D&D fans want to play a pure non-magical combat leader. 

2: The Warlord allows the realisation of a common trope within fantasy novels, TV and film to be realised.

3: There are a wide range of interesting mechanical possibilities which the class could realise (many of which are likely too powerful for feats).

4: It would be a nod to the fans of 4th Edition that not everything which made up the D&D they love is being thrown under a bus.

5.  It gives a non-magical alternative to spellcaster healing, allowing low- or no- magic campaigns to be run without extensive re-working or re-balancing.


6: Because the leader of men class has been part of D&D for over 10 years now. We've had warlord-like classes in 3rd edition with the Marshal, Warblade and Crusader.

7: It is good for D&D as a game to include players from as many editions as possible and it will encourage this if the classes from every PHB(1) are included in the PHB for Next.




Points 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 are all covered by the fighter class- it seems like your only hangup is trying to apply 4th edition roles to 5th edition classes, which don't really work that way.

The major difference is that instead of yelling "attack that guy!" and granting them an attack, you're yelling "attack that guy!" and making your own actions.  If you're a halfway decent leader, you'll be coordinating things well and making good decisions, and people will be inclined to follow your lead.  Instead of giving them a flat out initiative bonus, you should be realizing that there's a dangerous situation coming, and advising people to have their weapons ready.  Hey look, you weren't surprised.  If you, as a player, are just flat out bad at these things, then get other players to help you- or even the DM, if your stats warrant it.

I see point 7 as a non-issue; it'd be foolish to say that every new edition has to have all of the options from every previous edition.  I mean, 4th edition didn't even have gnomes or druids in the PHB!  Clearly it was a total failure as a result.

That really only leaves point 6, which completely boils down to the "are hit points meat?" debate, which I don't think is needed in this thread.

@Sleeps - I hope they will both incorporate those options into other classes and specialties AND have a warlord class. Just like you can take a specialty to be good at defending or magical healing without being a fighter or cleric.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true">On a similar anecdotal level, a significant number of D&D fans don't want this. The real question to ask is 'why?'.  


Because there's a noticeable amount of people who want it in the game, that alone should be enough reason to at least make an attempt to put it in the game.

People who don't want it? No one's forcing them to play the Warlord.


Well, it seems a few want to force people to include the Class into the game against the wishes of others. Who's to say what they'd be like around the game table?

The point is that just having a vocal group, who may very well be a small minority, who want the Class is not reason enough to include it. If there is a better way of dealing with this type of Character type (through Backgrounds and Specialities) for example it may actually make the overall concept more palatable and better integrated as an idea - for more people to play and enjoy. 

If the Warlord Class is merely desired for a collection of mechanical possibilities, then surely they can be handled through the existing mechanics - just choose a series of Feats, etc, that reflect these types of abilities (and make them available, of course). No need for a whole new Class.
This would be fine if they are willing to give the Paladin, Bard, and Barbarian, at minimum, the same treatment, considering the exact logic against the Warlord being a full class applies to those three classes as well.
The other Classes have a longer legacy (and established niches) in the game. They were also directly inspired by easily identifyable historical and fantasy literature examples. I think the whole problem with Warlords was that they were very much associated with 4E "Roles", insofar that they actually felt contrived to meet a mechanical niche rather than any true demand for a new archetype to be represented. 


I think as a ground rule nobody should be able to argue that warlords should be tossed but barbarians and sorcerers included because of "legacy" or "tradition." Barbarians made the PHB1 in all of one edition, 3e. Sorcerers were made up for 3e. No sorcerer is old enough to remember 9/11.

The "legacy" argument, used this way, boils down to "I like 3e better than 4e" and thus fails to convince anyone.

1: A significant number of D&D fans want to play a pure non-magical combat leader.


On a similar anecdotal level, a significant number od D&D fans don't. The real question is 'why?'.   



Well on the two polls which have been run on the issue the Warlord has rated well and done similarly on related polls on other forums.

Given the inclusive design ethic of Next that's really where the conversation should stop.

But two key issues have previously been raised with Warlord design, non-magical healing and disassociatve daily mechanics.

The first can be dealt with by eliminating healing, simply disallow healing of hits which MUST wounds (damage to or below 0HP) under the HP definition while allowing non-magical hit point restoration by inspiration.  This can be modular (having optional THP and non-HP related features at all points where these appear) as well for the truly offended.

The latter is already gone from all the suggested Next Warlord mechanics and proposals and is thus no longer valid.


2: The Warlord allows the realisation of a common trope within fantasy novels, TV and film to be realised.

All of which are already realised by the 'Fighter' trope or other existing classes, to one degree or another. The archetypal historical 'Warlord' of Attilla the Hun, for example is surely a quality example of a Barbarian? I recall somebody saying that a great example of a Warlord was Aragorn from LotR - yet he was actually a "Ranger", who eventually recalaimed a regal heritage. 



Except that the Fighter has never succeeded in actually realising these archetypes.

The previous efforts have been similar to giving a player a character with no magical ability beyond at-will Magic Missile and then being confused when they ask for a real Wizard.


The essential aspect of a Warlord is the point of them being an established leader of men - which is counter to the notion of playing from 1st level upwards in D&D tradition. A Warlord ought to be a title granted to a successful leader and conquester, or in D&D parlance when they reach a certain level - not a Class. 



1st Level Fighters are Veterans and 1st Level Wizards have had up to decades in study.

Very few classes meet the "fell off a turnip cart" test, why should it apply to the Warlord?


3: There are a wide range of interesting mechanical possibilities which the class could realise (many of which are likely too powerful for feats).

If the Warlord Class is merely desired for a collection of mechanical possibilities, then surely they can be handled through the existing mechanics - just choose a series of Feats, etc, that reflect these types of abilities (and make them available, of course). No need for a whole new Class. 




Some of the features which a Warlord needs to realise those archetypes are too mechanically powerful for Feats.

Further some players want to run characters with ONLY non magical combat leader features, so a class is the best way to realise that desire.


4: It would be a nod to the fans of 4th Edition that not everything which made up the D&D they love is being thrown under a bus.

This is not really an argument for game design, but more of tribal placation. I'd rather people focus on making a cohesive game then sell it to the masses, rather than the tail wagging the dog all the time.




If the tail wasn't wagging the dog we wouldn't have Vancian magic.

It's popular with only a minority of players from every edition, yet we still have it because of "tradition" as the default.

Adding one class to the game, which is entirely optional and can be ignored on nothing more than a whim, is hardly a lot to ask.


5.  It gives a non-magical alternative to spellcaster healing, allowing low- or no- magic campaigns to be run without extensive re-working or re-balancing.

Well, again, if it's just mechanical aspects that you are specifically looking for, then they should be integrated into the systems that exist - rather than just contriving a Class to deal with them.



Except that fulfilling those archetypes requires a character with only Warlord features and entirely modular classes which could allow that to be realised in another package (such as the Warlord as Fighter) break one of the basic class expectations for Next, that every class will have unique and iconic features which make them stand out as a class.


6: Because the leader of men class has been part of D&D for over 10 years now. We've had warlord-like classes in 3rd edition with the Marshal, Warblade and Crusader.

Actually they've existed for over thirty years - with the likes of the Paladin, and indeed Classes like the Barbarian and Fighter who used to be able to call upon retainers at higher levels in older editions. This doesn't constititute the need for a Warlord Class.



Not really, those other classes do only a poor job of allowing the kinds of characters which Warlord players want.

Otherwise there wouldn't be such a push for the Warlord.

There ARE some of us (whatever the opposition might try to argue about our "lies") who tried for years to make something like a Warlord work and only recently found that we could acutally play the characters we wanted in D&D.


7: It is good for D&D as a game to include players from as many editions as possible and it will encourage this if the classes from every PHB(1) are included in the PHB for Next.



True, but the game designers shouldn't be held to ransom - if they can show a better way of achieveing similar roles in a way that doesn't make other fans go "eh!" then it should make for a more inclusive game. 



The advent of 4th showed us what happens when things are excluded.

4th didn't include the Monk and a handful of players didn't give it another chance.

4th didn't include the Bard and a handful of players didn't give it another chance.

4th didn't include the Barbarian and a handful of players didn't give it another chance. 

4th didn't include the Sorcerer and a handful of players didn't give it another chance. 

4th didn't include the Druid and a handful of players didn't give it another chance.

4th didn't include the Gnome and a handful of players didn't give it another chance. 

4th didn't include the Half Orc and a handful of players didn't give it another chance. 

These handfuls combined with the handful each who didn't like the Dragonborn, didn't like the Tiefling, didn't like a core Warlock, didn't like the Warlord, didn't like the rigid class structure, didn't like the balance of the classes or didn't like some rules.

Those all added up to an edition war, Pathfinder and then Essentials and the death of an Edition.

It starts with exclusion.

Excluding things is a MISTAKE and shouldn't be done again.
I think as a ground rule nobody should be able to argue that warlords should be tossed but barbarians and sorcerers included because of "legacy" or "tradition." Barbarians made the PHB1 in all of one edition, 3e. Sorcerers were made up for 3e. No sorcerer is old enough to remember 9/11. The "legacy" argument, used this way, boils down to "I like 3e better than 4e" and thus fails to convince anyone.

Barbarians have been around since the mid 80s - but were just so badly implemented that nobody knew what to do with them. The archetype itself, however, was strong enough to be referenced in the D&D cartoon that came out about the same time. 

Sorcerers, I agree, were also introduced solely for a mechanical reason too (spontaneous casting, for the main, rather than prepared spells), but noteably the recent Wizard Class in Next looks like it has integrated aspects of this already.

In it's original D&D3ed form, therefore, I also think the Sorcerer is redundant. I could see some sort of amalgamation between the Pact-based Warlock and the Sorcerer however, for people who like dark mages rather than scholarly ones. 

]Well, it seems a few want to force people to include the Class into the game against the wishes of others.


A number of people want it in because they will play it, and the people who don't want it are free to not play it.

People who don't want it in at all don't want it in because they don't want anyone to play it.

Please explain to me which one sounds more reasonable.
]Well, it seems a few want to force people to include the Class into the game against the wishes of others.


A number of people want it in because they will play it, and the people who don't want it are free to not play it.

People who don't want it in at all don't want it in because they don't want anyone to play it.

Please explain to me which one sounds more reasonable.

The reasonable thing to do is allow the creators to present these options to the game in a manner that is more palatable to a whole bunch of people who found objection to it.

What is unreasonable is to demand that they have to do it in the 4e way, just 'cos they need to placate 4e fans.

The issue people have with the Warlord was that it wasn't really a archetypal Class, with mechanical aspects built onto it - but that it was a mechanical niche, desperately trying to make itself into a Class. If this issue isn't adressed it has no viability in the new game. 

Well, it seems a few want to force people to include the Class into the game against the wishes of others. 




I don't want Vancian magic in the game.

It doesn't work as a system to describe magic in the books I've read, TV I've seen or films I've watched.

Nor does it work to describe magic within the worlds I play D&D in.

It will not appear in my games.



So it shouldn't be in D&D?

Or is my game NOT D&D?



Why should my preferences be excluded from D&D, despite the fact that I have to put up with the preferences of others (including other classes I won't allow and races I won't have as PCs)?

Why is "D&D for everyone" actually "D&D for everyone ELSE, but not you"? 
I'm not going to be drawn into personalised debates about who should be allowed to be in D&D, player wise. I'm talking solely about the game design. 

Vancian Magic (which does exist in fantasy literature, incidetally - as written by Jack Vance), pertaining to the 3e Sorcerer is precicely what I am getting at. People didn't like the Vancian Magic system, so decided to create an 'alternative' Class in the form of the Sorcerer. What I am saying is, if there is a mechanical issue then deal with it through the mechanical aspects of the game, rather than create a contrived Class to deal with it. Class design should be inspired by clear fantasy archetypes, not mechanical issues.    
I'm not going to be drawn into personalised debates about who should be allowed to be in D&D, player wise. I'm talking solely about the game design. 

Vancian Magic (which does exist in fantasy literature, incidetally - as written by Jack Vance), pertaining to the 3e Sorcerer is precicely what I am getting at. People didn't like the Vancian Magic system, so decided to create an 'alternative' Class in the form of the Sorcerer. What I am saying is, if there is a mechanical issue then deal with it through the mechanical aspects of the game, rather than create a contrived Class to deal with it. Class design should be inspired by clear fantasy archetypes, not mechanical issues.    



So you see it as totally fine to say "what you want shouldn't be in D&D" and then refuse to justify that position in any way.

Ok.

I've listed five core archetypes which aren't fulfilled by any other class in D&D which the Warlord allows us to express.

Perhaps you could respond to those if you reject all mechanical solutions. 
So you see it as totally fine to say "what you want shouldn't be in D&D" and then refuse to justify that position in any way.



Err...no...and asserting words into my mouth isn't a great way to win an argument. 

I've listed five core archetypes which aren't fulfilled by any other class in D&D which the Warlord allows us to express.


Your 'archetypes' were weak, to say the least. 

Perhaps you could respond to those if you reject all mechanical solutions. 

Don't hold a breath if your hoping for me to respond to you again.

 The other Classes have a longer legacy (and established niches) in the game. They were also directly inspired by easily identifyable historical and fantasy literature examples. I think the whole problem with Warlords was that they were very much associated with 4E "Roles", insofar that they actually felt contrived to meet a mechanical niche rather than any true demand for a new archetype to be represented. 



They were?
Sorry, but you know... I just don't see it. The most iconic version of a "Barbarian" would work just as well as a Fighter/Rogue. Getting angry and calling power from it does not always go hand-in-hand with being half-naked or not being able to read or write. In fact, "Barbarian" is flatly a demeaning word used to describe people who one feels are not proper civilized people. It never should have been used for a class.

And Paladin? Frankly, the knight concept was already covered by the Fighter. The Ranger just serves to remove the ability of the Fighter to be a good archer. These classes have a long history of being anything short of "Fighter +". In fact, the originals versions of these classes were blatantly vastly superior to the Fighter and served as a way to reward people to an even greater extent for having rolled high ability scores and then chosen to be a human. In fact-- Ranger started at level 1 with three levels of hitpoints. Wrap your head around that!!

These concepts are easily covered by the fighter. And mechanically? Well, if these classes are better than a Fighter/Cleric and a Fighter/Druid respectively, then they are either overpowered or the multiclass system needs to be rethought.

And then the Bard... oh, you have got to be kidding me. Until D&D came up with this lame idea, I don't know of any examples of characters who saw enemies approaching and say, "Okay, guys! You go fight them while I strum this lute and dance like an idiot. That will somehow help you!!" and the "fix" that "oh, of COURSE they can plate a flute and sword fight at the same time" just made it even more terrible. When you really boil it all down, it is really just a Rogue/Illusionist with a really terrible concept idea that really doesn't need to exist.

Seriously, with those 4 classes we have one that is based around a concept that could and should be handled through offering a few feats (rage, faster movement, higher HP when wearing lighter armor) and three classes that could and should have just been handled through a solid mutliclass system that would allow players to create all sorts of other niche concepts.

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

You know though-- I will agree that there were issues regarding how the 4E Warlord was themed. But, you know, the concept of the class existed before that point. Not just when the "Marshal" class was formed, but prior to that in 3E there was an NPC class called the "Noble" and that class also existed within Star Wars. The concept of the class already existed, but the problem was that there wasn't much thought put into how it could actually contribute to the party mechanically until the Marshal was created for the D&D miniatures game. As a result, the Noble class in 3E was only half finished and the one in the Star Wars world was only marginally better.

Only when 4E came out was the name "Warlord" decided on. And, if one wants to say that the name "Warlord" doesn't quite sound right, I would be the first to agree. If one further wants to say that the 4E version of the class was a bit TOO much like a fighter, I would also agree with that. The verson that appeared in 4E did perhaps stray too far from the earlier "Noble" concept and ended up seeming too similar to the fighter instead of seeming like a "Noble" whose abilities mechanically fulfilled the role of a non-magical Cleric.

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

Finally, as for the issue of people not wanting to allow concepts in their game?

What if the game world doesn't have forests? Or doesn't take place in a world that is themed around Europe with European animals? The Druid and  Ranger classes suddenly have huge issues. What should one do? Can you simply ban them from the game? But what if someone wants to play one and insists that they should be able to because it is in the player's handbook?

Even better, what if someone wants a game world where the existence of the gods is murkier like in our own world rather than having a plethora of gods who spend all their time just sitting around with nothing better to do than to instantly fulfill every one of their devoted followers wishes whenever they ask? Can one create that world and thus throw out the idea of Paladins and Clerics? Absolutely not!! Cleric has been given sole domain over THE most essential and critical role in all of D&D-- the ability to restore health and stamina. Without that ability one literally CANNOT run a successful game on a reasonable time scale. Thus, the Cleric class is an essential part of every single party and the game world MUST have a plethora of gods sitting around with nothing better to do than to instantly fulfill every one of their devoted followers wishes.

And can you not imagine that there are those who find the concepts of bard and barbarian, particularly the whole 1 personality type that each class seems to embody, entirely lame, difficult to stomach and perhaps even offensive? Is it okay for them to refuse to play in any game that allows them to be used?

Pulling together all the evidence and arguments from the various threads on the topic to date there are several good reasons why we SHOULD see a Warlord class:


1: A significant number of D&D fans want to play a pure non-magical combat leader. 




That's all the reason I need. 

It's all the reason 5e should need, if its goal of inclusiveness is genuine.

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!


Vancian Magic (which does exist in fantasy literature, incidetally - as written by Jack Vance), pertaining to the 3e Sorcerer is precicely what I am getting at. People didn't like the Vancian Magic system, so decided to create an 'alternative' Class in the form of the Sorcerer. What I am saying is, if there is a mechanical issue then deal with it through the mechanical aspects of the game, rather than create a contrived Class to deal with it.



Okay, so let's say I'm the 3e design team. Some people hate Vancian preparation, some love it. Here are my options: 
1. Get rid of it and have wizards use MP or something new.
2. Keep it and say "tough luck" or "wait for psionics to come out" to those who dislike it. 
3. Add a new class to the core (which takes up about a page) that lets people who want to play a non-Vancian wizard at least have SOMEthing.
4. Make spellcasting modular so any Vancian class has options at hand.

They went with #3. #4 is a better approach, IMO, and it's what Next is doing, but it probably didn't occur to the team in the 90s, what with all the listening to Britney Spears and reading the Starr Report and invading Kosovo that was going on at the time. Or maybe it seemed too complex. Regardless, #3 seems like a better option to me that just flat-out pissing off a huge group of people, and as a kicker, it actually enabled people to play a MAJOR fantasy trope that was sorely underrepresented prior (the guy with "inborn" magic).

The same arguments would hold here. The warlord will only take up a page or so of the PHB, it'll make some people very happy, and it won't hurt the people who don't like it.
I knew it would happen if I just waited long enough, turns out it was less than a few hours. the "we love the warlord" party train would get derailed by pretty much anybody who wants to point out the obvious flaws in the arguement that the warlord class is necessary or important.

As somebody who does not want the warlord in, I've already given the 9 or so reasons why in that other 38 page closed thread that had the exact same arguments and exact same objections almost word for word in it, community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758... (read that and the two pages that follow and its pretty easy to see why it was closed.)

as a refresher

1) waste of book space for a class that simply duplicates the abilities of classes already inlcuded
2) steps on the toes of other classes for position in party
3) shouting away injury and poison "without magic" makes no sense. (yes, a percentage of HP IS ACTUAL damage, getting rid of a poisoned condition just by yelling is criminally stupid.)
4) class can easily be created as a background or PRC, archtypes and an actual class is unecessary
5) creates a RP problem, class is defined and is to be treated as an expert without having the character do anything provinig expertise. (should be a PRC if anything)
6) Character is assumed to be the leader of warriors, barbarians, fighters etc. without the requirement that the character gains any levels in those classes. This is against previous editions where to be a respected leader, levels needed to be gained to attract followers. so no, you cant be a warlord and a hayseed.  


but a big bottom line is... book space is limited, increasing book size for unpopular classes (and no I dont accept two polls given to primarily 4e players are representitive of D&D players as a whole) means a higher pricetag for the books I dont want to pay for, and more information I dont want to have to remember or implement in my game.

but by all means, keep posting re-posting the same flawed reasons why the class should be kept, maybe sometime nobody will disagree with you and you can finally send a link to a dev saying "see everybody still wants the warlord!"

oh and one last thing...

warlord, combat feat, character is an expert stratigist, you can target any single enemy and any allies attacking that enemy recieve a +1 to hit.

bang, done warlord no longer needs a class, forget about the whole "11 minimum abilities and four key arctypes" they arent key, and they are by no means a minimum, whole warlord class can be duplicated effectively with just one feat and a smidgeon of background. 

ta da.  

oh and PS, the Dungeons and Dragons cartoon... came out just after AD&D unearthed arcana came out, cavileer, theif-acrobat (just called acrobat in the series), barbarian, were all official classes from UA.  
"The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules." Gygax
1) waste of book space for a class that simply duplicates the abilities of classes already inlcuded


Sorceror, Barbarian, Paladin, Bard all already do this.

2) steps on the toes of other classes for position in party


No more than the above. And so what? Nothing wrong a little overlap.

3) shouting away injury and poison "without magic" makes no sense.


Hit points are abstract and whatever they need to be at the time. And he isn't "shouting away injury and poison", he's inspiring them to continue fighting on in spite of the injuries.

4) class can easily be created as a background or PRC, archtypes and an actual class is unecessary


See list of 4 classes above.

5) creates a RP problem, class is defined and is to be treated as an expert without having the character do anything provinig expertise.


You mean like every class ever made for D&D?

6) Character is assumed to be the leader of warriors, barbarians, fighters etc. without the requirement that the character gains any levels in those classes. This is against previous editions where to be a respected leader, levels needed to be gained to attract followers. so no, you cant be a warlord and a hayseed.


Why not? And why do they HAVE to have levels in another class before they're allowed to be a leader?

1) waste of book space for a class that simply duplicates the abilities of classes already inlcuded


Okay, how do I grant an action to my ally in Next?

2) steps on the toes of other classes for position in party


Huh? Meaning that somebody might choose to play a warlord instead of a cleric? Or that one player might want to play a cleric while another wants to play a warlord, and the inevitable result will be real-life fisticuffs? If it's the latter, a well-designed warlord class should actually synergize with the cleric class.

3) shouting away injury and poison "without magic" makes no sense. (yes, a percentage of HP IS ACTUAL damage, getting rid of a poisoned condition just by yelling is criminally stupid.)


I wouldn't mind a warlord restricted to temp-HP "healing."

4) class can easily be created as a background or PRC, archtypes and an actual class is unecessary


So you don't mind them wasting a page on a PRC that does the same thing, but it makes you really mad to see them do it for a base class?

5) creates a RP problem, class is defined and is to be treated as an expert without having the character do anything provinig expertise. (should be a PRC if anything)


This is a problem with the name more than the concept. The warlord is a tactical mastermind and an inspiring battlefield presence. Do chess masters need a PRC? Does the guy who carries around a flag on the battlefield to rally the troops need a PRC? Because I'm thinking tactics and inspiration are both things you can do as a base-level "adventurer."

6) Character is assumed to be the leader of warriors, barbarians, fighters etc. without the requirement that the character gains any levels in those classes.


No it isn't. You don't get a free Leadership feat or anything. You're just inspiring and/or good at tactics.

but a big bottom line is... book space is limited, increasing book size for unpopular classes (and no I dont accept two polls given to primarily 4e players are representitive of D&D players as a whole) means a higher pricetag for the books I dont want to pay for, and more information I dont want to have to remember or implement in my game.


Um, the price you pay for that extra page is a fraction of a cent. And go ahead and point to another poll that proves how much the world fears and despises the warlord class if you think it's that "unpopular."

warlord, combat feat, character is an expert stratigist, you can target any single enemy and any allies attacking that enemy recieve a +1 to hit.

bang, done warlord no longer needs a class, forget about the whole "11 minimum abilities and four key arctypes" they arent key, and they are by no means a minimum, whole warlord class can be duplicated effectively with just one feat and a smidgeon of background. 

ta da.  


Haha, wow, you got us!

fighter, martial feat, character is good at only fighting, you add +1 to all attack rolls but lose 2 trained skills.
wizard, magic feat, character is an expert wizard, you can add +1d4 fire damage to any attack.
cleric, magic feat, character is friends with a god, you can mumble about Pelor and get +4 to Heal checks.
warlock, magic feat, character made a deal with the devil, all your spells cause shadow damage and when you hit level 20 Satan claims your soul.
bard, general feat, character is mediocre at everything and sings a lot, you are trained in perform but take a -1 to all other actions due to aforementioned mediocrity.

BAM! Send it to the printers! 
Iwill be the first to say I did not care for 4e, or for that matter the Warlord class per se, but seriously - just put in the PHB  a subsection talking about martial healing, describing it as being up o the DM, and give people a non cleric healer.  I never just let people play anything just because its in the PHB anyway.  I am amazed at how strongly people feel about this.

If it doesn't come out intially it certainly will in a splat book, ala 3.5's Unearthed Arcana, same thing the the casting.  I would argue just have the option in the PHB to begin with and list it as optional.

My 2cp.
To read about my playtest sessions click here: http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/29995793/?sdb=1&pg=last#533677003


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

the "we love the warlord" party train would get derailed by pretty much anybody who wants to point out the obvious flaws in the arguement that the warlord class is necessary or important. 

As somebody who does not want the warlord in, I've already given the 9 or so reasons why in that other 38 page thread that had the exact same arguments and exact same objections almost word for word in it, community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758... 

Yep, and your reasons were all invalid then, too, but I'll explain, again, for the benefit of those you are trying to decieve:

1) waste of book space for a class that simply duplicates the abilities of classes already inlcuded

This is flatly false.  There is no other class that does what the warlord did.  The latest fighter doesn't come close.  The bard is a caster.

But, even if it had a grain of truth to it, this objection is already true of other classes that are already 'in,' and to a greater degree.  The Ranger and Paladin, for instance, are 'wastes of space' that could as easily be covered with MC'd Fighter/Druid and Fighter/Paladin.  

2) steps on the toes of other classes for position in party

Who's toes?  The cleric, because the warlord healed?  So does the Bard and Druid.  The fighter?  Nope, the fighter's still 'best at frighting,' the warlord was never as tough as the fighter in his own right.  


3) shouting away injury and poison "without magic" makes no sense. (yes, a percentage of HP IS ACTUAL damage, getting rid of a poisoned condition just by yelling is criminally stupid.)

Actually, the kind of injuries you're talking about already make "no sense."  An injury so severe that you couldn't just ignore it and fight on as if it had never happened, if sufficiently inspired is also an injury so severe it would give you very substantial penalities.  No amount of hps damage does that.  

So, this is an objection to hps, not to the way the Warlord restores hps.

4) class can easily be created as a background or PRC, archtypes and an actual class is unecessary

False again, the Warlord was a very full class with half a dozen 'builds,' multiple alternatives for all its features and hundreds of powers.  A background is just a collection of skills and some 'background' benefit.  There might be some warlord-apropriate backgrounds, like military officer or knight or noble or whatever - but they don't begin to model the full functionality of the class.

But, again, even if it were true, that objection hasn't stopped other classes from being included.  The barbarian is a much better candidate for a mere cultural Background than the warlord, yet it is a full class.  The paladin could be a PrC as easily as a multi-classed fighter/paladin.  

5) creates a RP problem, class is defined and is to be treated as an expert without having the character do anything provinig expertise. (should be a PRC if anything)

Your meaning here is unclear.  Is a Cleric not an ordained priest, to be treated as an expert in things divine?  Is a wizard not an expert in the arcane?  It would seem this objection is true of virtually all classes.  

6) Character is assumed to be the leader of warriors, barbarians, fighters etc. without the requirement that the character gains any levels in those classes.

A bizarre idea.  Leaders rarely have all the same specialized skills and knowledge of those they lead.  Most warlords should probably be warriors in their own right, but that doesn't require fighter levels - most classes have some martial ability. 

but a big bottom line is... book space is limited

Take out some PHs and start counting pages.  Look at the playtest and count some pages.  What's taking up the most space?

Spells.  Casters take up much more space than non-casters because of their long spell lists.  Want to save space, cut one caster class and you'll have room for a 5e version of every full martial class that's ever been in the game.  Or, just cut a few spells if space it tight, and have room for every 'controversial' class that's ever been in a PH1.  It's not like there aren't going to be hundreds of new spells published in the ensuing years.


warlord, combat feat, character is an expert stratigist, you can target any single enemy and any allies attacking that enemy recieve a +1 to hit. bang, done warlord no longer needs a class,

Cleric?  Divinity Feat, bless everyone of you fait for a +1 to hit, bang, done, no cleric needed.


Your objections to the warlord are downright irrational and arbitrary.  Most are outright lies, all would apply equally - or even more strongly - to other classes that are already 'in.'  Heck, a few are just incoherent to the point of being meaningless.










 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

Iwill be the first to say I did not care for 4e, or for that matter the Warlord class per se, but seriously - just put in the PHB  a subsection talking about martial healing, describing it as being up o the DM, and give people a non cleric healer. 

Everything is up to the DM.   

Put the warlord class in, make sure that the "healing" abilities it has are all choices, and any player that has a problem can just make different choices.   The DM needn't get into it unless he has some specific campaign reasons.

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

Iwill be the first to say I did not care for 4e, or for that matter the Warlord class per se, but seriously - just put in the PHB  a subsection talking about martial healing, describing it as being up o the DM, and give people a non cleric healer. 

Everything is up to the DM.   

Put the warlord class in, make sure that the "healing" abilities it has are all choices, and any player that has a problem can just make different choices.   The DM needn't get into it unless he has some specific campaign reasons.




Lol, I know right?  I just don't get the Warlord hate, and I don't even like the class personally, lol.
To read about my playtest sessions click here: http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/29995793/?sdb=1&pg=last#533677003


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



barbarian, martial feat, you get angry sometimes, +2 damage on melee attacks when you're angry.
NO! THATS TOTALLY DIFFERENT! lol.
"The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules." Gygax
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />So, this Warlord class, is there some way to make it a background or something so they do get the Warlord theme. I never really paid attention (I know, I know inorance) mostly because just the class itself screams military, which seems the opposite direction of a D&D theme. Leadership is part of the character and their insight, goals, and relay of strategy that can be attached to any class.

Sorry if slightly (mostly?) misinformed on this topic, but I read a lot of undertones of "Leadership" the root reason for this class. Just be a leader. For your Health. ~Dr. Steve Brule

 

I just said something and you just read it. Sorry about that.



dude... its like you know me IRL

kill the wiz- I'm laughing right now, but I REALLY DO FEEL SAD when they get so upset, I know I was feeling the same thing when I saw half orc was not going to be part of the PBH 4e, but meh at a certan point you just move on kinda like what I hope happens soon with this whole keep making threads about the warlord! thing.

and no, aparently if it does not have the essential mandatory minimum 11 whatevers and 4 key whozits, their not going to be happy about it.
"The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules." Gygax
    I've removed content from this thread because baiting/trolling is a violation of the Code of Conduct.  You can review the Code of Conduct here www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_...

Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.
Sign In to post comments