Wouldn't a non magical bard just be a warlord with musical talent?
The HotFW 'Skald' is a bard subclass that, while still magical, has some martial powers that work with an 'aura' to produce effects a bit like a Marshal. So, the resemblance is clear.
And, it certainly seems that in any ed, the possession of magical powers is a pretty key defining class trait. If Warlord's are non-magical de-facto 'leaders' and Bards cast arcane spells (even if they do it by singing), the Warlord would be the place for a non-magical character who inspires, even if he inspires with song.
The problem with putting inspiration solely on the bard is that the bard comes with a good chuck of fluff baggage (instruments, story telling) and mechanical differences (spells) that some people don't want in their leaderly character.
That's an assumption at this point. I hope there will be a non-caster bard variant in 5e. To include both a tactical and inspirational leader in the same class IMO can muddle the distinction between a bard and warlord mechanically.
Wouldn't a non magical bard just be a warlord with musical talent? The bard and warlord are plenty distinct in 4e, and the warlord has an inpsiring variant. Should the ranger not be adept at skill use because the rogue also does it? Of course not. Should the rogue have no con man type scheme because the bard is a social expert? Of course not. The game has, and should, contain some degree of overlap between classes. It's a good thing.
Having a non-magical bard variant is no different than a non-magical ranger variant. For either class, magical ability isn't the primary feature. My point is that the primary feature of a class should be relatively distinct. If a non-magical bard = warlord, and inspiring warlord = bard, what makes them distinct? I'm suggesting keeping the tactics to warlords, and inspiration to bards, to better separate their unique features.
There can and should be room for crossover concepts between classes. IMO, refluffing classes in 4e was problematic, and very limited in previous editions. As some have pointed out, if you wanted to be an enabling-focused leader, the warlord had the better powers, but what if the bard class fit the concept better overall?
I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.
The problem with putting inspiration solely on the bard is that the bard comes with a good chuck of fluff baggage (instruments, story telling) and mechanical differences (spells) that some people don't want in their leaderly character.
That's an assumption at this point. I hope there will be a non-caster bard variant in 5e. To include both a tactical and inspirational leader in the same class IMO can muddle the distinction between a bard and warlord mechanically.
Wouldn't a non magical bard just be a warlord with musical talent? The bard and warlord are plenty distinct in 4e, and the warlord has an inpsiring variant. Should the ranger not be adept at skill use because the rogue also does it? Of course not. Should the rogue have no con man type scheme because the bard is a social expert? Of course not. The game has, and should, contain some degree of overlap between classes. It's a good thing.
Having a non-magical bard variant is no different than a non-magical ranger variant. For either class, magical ability isn't the primary feature. My point is that the primary feature of a class should be relatively distinct. If a non-magical bard = warlord, and inspiring warlord = bard, what makes them distinct? I'm suggesting keeping the tactics to warlords, and inspiration to bards, to better separate their unique features.
There can and should be room for crossover concepts between classes. IMO, refluffing classes in 4e was problematic, and very limited in previous editions. As some have pointed out, if you wanted to be an enabling-focused leader, the warlord had the better powers, but what if the bard class fit the concept better overall?
I don't see what was problematic at all about refluffing in 4e. The fluff for the powers are seperate from the mechanics. Also the inspirational warlord doesn't take any change in fluff to be a bard. The Skald bard requires little to refluff to make it fit warlord.
Imagine a world where the first-time D&D player rolls stats, picks a race, picks a class, picks an alignment, and buys gear to create a character. Imagine if an experienced player, maybe the person helping our theoretical player learn the ropes, could also make a character by rolling ability scores and picking a race, class, feat, skills, class features, spells or powers, and so on. Those two players used different paths to build characters, but the system design allows them to play at the same table. -Mearl
I'm suggesting keeping the tactics to warlords, and inspiration to bards, to better separate their unique features.
I could live with that, even though inspiring word was a defining mechanic for the 4e warlord. There can always be some bleed-over, but I agree that the bard's primary shtick, whether magical or nonmagical is "inspire", while the warlord's primary shtick should be "coordinate".
Actually, most classes have a shticky verb: Assassin: Assassinate (duh!) Barbarian: Rage Bard: Inspire Fighter: Fight (duh!) Monk: Flurry Paladin: Smite Ranger: Range Rogue: Finesse Warlord: Coordinate
Unsurprisingly, the classes with the least definition are those that are primarily spellcasting. Cleric, Illusionist, Psion, Sorcerer, Warlock, and Wizard don't have a shtick. They just "cast", and in casting cover a wide variety of shticks.
Unsurprisingly, the classes with the least definition are those that are primarily spellcasting. Cleric, Illusionist, Psion, Sorcerer, Warlock, and Wizard don't have a shtick. They just "cast", and in casting cover a wide variety of shticks.
I realizing this is heading off topic, but I agree. This is why when I completed the spell survey a few weeks ago, I recomended narrowing the focus of each caster classes' spells to a small, tight knit and iconic group that gives each class a distinct shtick. If you want to dable or broaden to be a 'kitchen sink,' then do that with specialties or optional class features that provide access to a broader array of spells.
I also agree that it would be nice to find a way to avoid implying authority. This proves to be very difficult.
The idea of the class is a leader of men in battle. There's no way that's not going to include some sort of sense of authority, even if it's only derived from leading by example.
I could live with that, even though inspiring word was a defining mechanic for the 4e warlord. There can always be some bleed-over, but I agree that the bard's primary shtick, whether magical or nonmagical is "inspire", while the warlord's primary shtick should be "coordinate".
"Coordinating," in the sense of leading in battle is not something you can do without some ability to inspire (even if only to inspire greater fear than fear of the enemy). Outside of combat, sure, you can have some uninspiring Adventure Facilitator coordinating exploration or something. But even the Warlord focused on tactics & strategy should be able to inspire. So, yes, plenty of "bleed-over."
The problem with putting inspiration solely on the bard is that the bard comes with a good chuck of fluff baggage (instruments, story telling) and mechanical differences (spells) that some people don't want in their leaderly character.
That's an assumption at this point. I hope there will be a non-caster bard variant in 5e. To include both a tactical and inspirational leader in the same class IMO can muddle the distinction between a bard and warlord mechanically.
Wouldn't a non magical bard just be a warlord with musical talent? The bard and warlord are plenty distinct in 4e, and the warlord has an inpsiring variant. Should the ranger not be adept at skill use because the rogue also does it? Of course not. Should the rogue have no con man type scheme because the bard is a social expert? Of course not. The game has, and should, contain some degree of overlap between classes. It's a good thing.
Having a non-magical bard variant is no different than a non-magical ranger variant. For either class, magical ability isn't the primary feature. My point is that the primary feature of a class should be relatively distinct. If a non-magical bard = warlord, and inspiring warlord = bard, what makes them distinct? I'm suggesting keeping the tactics to warlords, and inspiration to bards, to better separate their unique features.
There can and should be room for crossover concepts between classes. IMO, refluffing classes in 4e was problematic, and very limited in previous editions. As some have pointed out, if you wanted to be an enabling-focused leader, the warlord had the better powers, but what if the bard class fit the concept better overall?
You refluff the warlord and a bard. Because it is trivial to reflavour things in 4e.
Bards are magical in dnd. Every single bard in dnd has been magical. I'd love a non magical bard option, but unlike the ranger, such a bard would be a completely new thing for dnd.
There are so many different ways to mechanically represent inspiration, there should be no problem having two inspiring classes, especially when one is classically magical, and one is definately not.
The HotFW 'Skald' is a bard subclass that, while still magical, has some martial powers that work with an 'aura' to produce effects a bit like a Marshal. So, the resemblance is clear.
And, it certainly seems that in any ed, the possession of magical powers is a pretty key defining class trait. If Warlord's are non-magical de-facto 'leaders' and Bards cast arcane spells (even if they do it by singing), the Warlord would be the place for a non-magical character who inspires, even if he inspires with song.
Yep. A HoTF type skald character could (i hope) be bluilt either with a bard/warlord mc, or as a bard with more abillities that aren't directly magical, and focused on hitting things and such.
Unsurprisingly, the classes with the least definition are those that are primarily spellcasting. Cleric, Illusionist, Psion, Sorcerer, Warlock, and Wizard don't have a shtick. They just "cast", and in casting cover a wide variety of shticks.
The warlock, I'd say, has a bit more of a shtick, in "cursing". TBF, in 3.5 is was "blasting", which was shared by any caster that chose blasty powers, but I think the 4e warlock was far more successful.
I also don't think that Fight! is all that defining. Fighters have always seemed to be just as undefined and unfocused as the wizard, if not moreso.
"Coordinating," in the sense of leading in battle is not something you can do without some ability to inspire (even if only to inspire greater fear than fear of the enemy). Outside of combat, sure, you can have some uninspiring Adventure Facilitator coordinating exploration or something. But even the Warlord focused on tactics & strategy should be able to inspire. So, yes, plenty of "bleed-over."
And Inspiring Word definitely needs to stay.
This.
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
I could live with that, even though inspiring word was a defining mechanic for the 4e warlord. There can always be some bleed-over, but I agree that the bard's primary shtick, whether magical or nonmagical is "inspire", while the warlord's primary shtick should be "coordinate".
"Coordinating," in the sense of leading in battle is not something you can do without some ability to inspire (even if only to inspire greater fear than fear of the enemy). Outside of combat, sure, you can have some uninspiring Adventure Facilitator coordinating exploration or something. But even the Warlord focused on tactics & strategy should be able to inspire. So, yes, plenty of "bleed-over."
And Inspiring Word definitely needs to stay.
Inspiration is a fairly broad concept, but I don't see that as the schtick of the warlord. IMO, Warlords major in coordination, and minor in inspiring, where I see bards as the reverse. If warlords can inspire as well as bards can, are bards able to coordinate as well as warlords?
I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.
Imagine a world where the first-time D&D player rolls stats, picks a race, picks a class, picks an alignment, and buys gear to create a character. Imagine if an experienced player, maybe the person helping our theoretical player learn the ropes, could also make a character by rolling ability scores and picking a race, class, feat, skills, class features, spells or powers, and so on. Those two players used different paths to build characters, but the system design allows them to play at the same table. -Mearl
