Community

Oct 6, 2012 -- 9:42PM, The_Jester wrote:

The leadership thing just seems like much more of a charactr trait, a personality not a class feature. "Hey, I'm a variant ranger with Charisma and leadership skills like Robin Hood. So I'm not a ranger, I'm a commando." Or "I'm a rogue with knowledge of tactics, so I'm a Strategian."

The leadership thing is a character trait up until you define it in mechanical terms. Much like how being religious is just a character trait, until you make it mean something in game, at which point it becomes not just one class, but several. I'm really not sure I see your point here.

If a warlord is defined a fighter with social skills, what happens when you give a 5e fighter a high Cha, a background with social skills, the Healer speciality, and role-play him as a leader?

What happens when you give a 5e fighter a high dex, a background with sneaky skills, ambusher specialty, and roleplay him as a rogue?

Backgrounds and specialties help tailor your character, and yes let you get a semi-multiclassing thing going on. This does not invalidate the need for a base class to represent the concept.

Edit: Also apparently Im tired and need to read better, I assumed you had gone with some theoretical leader specialty, rather than the healer specialty. The healer specialty doesn't make the fighter a particularly capable, or even decent, in combat healer, and misses out on huge chunks of what the warlord can do, so it would be even further from the mark than I was thinking.

As an aside, the Fighter has little to no incentive to have any mental attribute as a decent stat. All of his class features and combat capability key off of str(or dex) and con. By taking another attribute as a primary/secondary (and thus making it high enough to matter and let him contribute meaningfully either as a Lore guy/tactitian or social guy), he is sacrificing attributes elsewhere, and making himself less effective, while lacking the class abilities to make up for that, because his class abilities are all made with the assumption the fighter is making himself better.

the more i read the more i come to think that maybe a warlord should be somthing like a prestige class with very low entry requirement, and maybe staggerd advancement.

so you can mix it with any other class.
rogue+warlord = guild master type
ranger+warlord = robin hood type
fighter + warlord = batlefield leader type.

 

Oct 6, 2012 -- 9:42PM, The_Jester wrote:

If a warlord is defined a fighter with social skills, what happens when you give a 5e fighter a high Cha, a background with social skills, the Healer speciality, and role-play him as a leader?

What happens when you give a 5e cleric a high Strength, a background with equestrian skills, the ability to smite people, and role-play him as a paladin?

It cannot be that we don't have a class because you mutate a different class into a Frankenstein-style effigy of it.

The warlord is an archetype never before fulfilled in D&D.  Can we have a warlord-ish specialty?  Or Background?  Sure.  Just as we can have roguish specialty, or a clerical specialty.

I don't understand why so many people seem to be mortally offended at warlord joining the ranks of established classes.

Warlord+wizard=bard.

But a PRC with a low entry point is a class.  And guild leader is a PRC.

Simple it was one of the innovative aspects of 4e, and it chipped away at the 'only mages can have cool control the whole field type powers' sacred cow.

That's why people wanna get it nerfed. 

Oct 6, 2012 -- 9:42PM, The_Jester wrote:

If a warlord is defined a fighter with social skills, what happens when you give a 5e fighter a high Cha, a background with social skills, the Healer speciality, and role-play him as a leader?

He fails to be very good at Fighting, may have some social connections, and is really good at making potions.
Sorta like a School Lunch Lady!
 You keep her around because she has those yummy chocolate milk single serve cartons.
 She may, later on, even be able to assist the School Nurse. Not with any emergency, mind you, but with little things that are no rush.

The Healer Specialty is greatly diminshed if you don't have a way of providing healing.  Running around, carrying a grip of healing potions you yourself lovingly crafted is cute, but it's not even vaguely in the ball park of preserving the Warlord's concept integrity. 
I also wonder about what social background is to be taken. Because Soldier obviously isn't it. Which is almost ironic... 

Also warlord is not a fighter with anything, except maybe an entirely different approach to life and combat, and mediocre weapon skills.

A Warlord with no combat ability of any kind?

David Tennant as Doctor Who.

As for who will quit Next if there isn't full healing on Warlords?

I will.

I'll just carry on playing other games instead and WotC won't make a penny off me for the run of Next, or 'till they finally print options which cover the game I want to play.

Because it's this simple,

Every version of D&D has allowed for a definition of Hit Points which leaves room for Martial Healing and those people who don't like it were running house rules, not the RAW. 

I'm not demanding that they run a Module in their game that they don't like, the Warlord will be a Module just like EVERY class.

If they don't like Martial Healing then they don't have to allow it in their game.

But if they think that I'll buy into a half-cocked "compromise" for a class that they are planning on banning anyway (seriously, go back and read the other Warlord threads, that's exactly what most have said AFTER demaning that we alter to meet their expectations) then they are out and out wrong.

I'll just vote with my wallet and keep it closed 'till I see what I want.                       

Oct 7, 2012 -- 1:56AM, Admiral-JCJF wrote:

Every version of D&D has allowed for a definition of Hit Points which leaves room for Martial Healing and those people who don't like it were running house rules, not the RAW. 

Really? I recall a Warlord class (the Marshal) in 3.5 from the Miniatures Handbook, but even that class didn't have any healing abilities. 

I can't think of any non-magical healing that wasn't based on herbal remedies or bed-rest in 3.x, or any of the previous versions of the game. Even if the definition of HP throughout any edition allowed for martial healing (and I'm not convinced they did), I'd argue that the pathetic natural healing rates and complete lack of utilization of the concept were fair indication that being told to "hold the line, soldier!" wasn't something that supposed to stack up on the healing front.

In that light, you can hardly accuse those who disliked the idea of running house rules. That the RAW never addressed the issue isn't an indication that they were allowed, any more than it's lack of comment on the strength enhancing powers of spinach were an indication that it could be used as an anabolic steroid. It simply had not been thought of at that stage.    

Oct 7, 2012 -- 3:32AM, Landro wrote:

Oct 7, 2012 -- 1:56AM, Admiral-JCJF wrote:

Every version of D&D has allowed for a definition of Hit Points which leaves room for Martial Healing and those people who don't like it were running house rules, not the RAW. 

Really? I recall a Warlord class (the Marshal) in 3.5 from the Miniatures Handbook, but even that class didn't have any healing abilities.

I don't think your statement responds to his.  Every version of D&D did involve abstract hp.  Whether the marshall had healing powers or not is a different point.

Also, the marshall was universally considered one of the weakest classes in D&D. It certainly was the inspiration for the 4e warlord, but you can't use it as a shining example of a warlord without martial healing because, as much as I loved it, it was a horribly designed class.

In that light, you can hardly accuse those who disliked the idea of running house rules.

Om that point, we agree.  I believe (but have nothing but anecdotal evidence) that a lot of people treated hp as physical damage, as absurd as that sometimes resulted.  Whether they were playing RAW or not is irrelevant.  If you introduce a class that people want but which also contradicts a common house rule, you have a problem.  Restricting warlords to only those people who can embrace the abstractness of hp is, in my opinion, a terrible mistake. And, while I would hate to see Admiral go to another game on such a small point, I believe that the proportion of people who would agree with him would be greatly outnumbered by the number of people who want a warlord class that plays nice with campaigns in which hp are treated less abstractly.

Forcing the warlord to play in a more limited number of campaign styles than other classes is, in my opinion, a great disservice to the class and will relegate it to being an obscure class that is not embraced by the consumership and will in the end be releated to the unfortunate role of rarely played curiosity.  The class deserves better.

well how could martial/warlord healing work?
maybe somthing like the folowing:

when a warlord hits with an atack an ally within 30 feet can spend one of it's healing hit dice.
this can be used a number of times per encounter acording to the folowing table 
1st 1 time
3rd 2 times
5th 3 times
7th 4 times
9th 5 times
11th 6 times
13th 7 times
15th 8 times
17th 9 times

also during the first short rest after a combat encounter a number of targets equal to the warlords charisma modifyer re gain hitpoints as if they spend 1 healing hit dice

Probably the best compromise for a warlord it granting temporary hit points as a substitution for healing, if you go along the train of thought that the warlord is providing inspiration to the party. To me it makes no difference whether the class heals or grants temporary hit points. It still applies to the abstract value of hit points. You could even add another approach that the warlord provides damage resistance.

Oct 6, 2012 -- 5:31PM, The_Jester wrote:

Challenge 1
Find me picture of warlords. Pictures that are undeniably warlords and only warlords and could not be mistaken for fighters.
You can do it for paladins & fighters and wizards & sorcerers, can you do it for warlords & fighter?

With fighting going on all around him he is the one riding high in his saddle without fear of his enemies. His presence inspires both fear and hope. Any fighter can put on a shiny suit of armor and ride into battle, but when you see the warlord you realize the differences immediately.

Oct 6, 2012 -- 5:31PM, The_Jester wrote:

Challenge 2
Describe to me how bio leader fighter or a tank/ damage dealer warlord would be different. 
How can a warlord be as as diverse as the cleric (war vs sun domains, tank vs healer)?

Fighter might be decently proficient at tactics during battle. The fighter could make tactical decisions on the fly to best position his peers.

A warlord is a master of battle field tactics; pulling off complicated maneuvers to dramatically shift the battle field.  With rousing speeches and colorful language,  the warlord inspire his men and rally soldiers who moral has broken. He is capable of this before, during and after battle.

Edit: Forgot to add the picture.

Oct 6, 2012 -- 9:46PM, Seerow wrote:

If a warlord is defined a fighter with social skills, what happens when you give a 5e fighter a high Cha, a background with social skills, the Healer speciality, and role-play him as a leader?

Backgrounds and specialties help tailor your character, and yes let you get a semi-multiclassing thing going on. This does not invalidate the need for a base class to represent the concept. Also apparently Im tired and need to read better, I assumed you had gone with some theoretical leader specialty, rather than the healer specialty. The healer specialty doesn't make the fighter a particularly capable, or even decent, in combat healer, and misses out on huge chunks of what the warlord can do, so it would be even further from the mark than I was thinking.

The role of combat medic is overstated anyway. The focus on in-combat healing was very much focused and emphasised in 4e play and is an extension of MMO play where the in-combat healer is a much larger role. It makes great sense from 4e's design focus on giving everyone something to do in combat, but might not necassarily be as necassary all the time in 5e.
When playing earlier editions, the frequency a cleric would be using their healing mid-fight will vary greatly between groups, between levels, and between play style. Many quick short fights means there's less incentive to have an in-combat healer and an out-of-combat healer might work just fine at prolonging the combat day.

Oct 6, 2012 -- 9:46PM, Seerow wrote:

As an aside, the Fighter has little to no incentive to have any mental attribute as a decent stat. All of his class features and combat capability key off of str(or dex) and con. By taking another attribute as a primary/secondary (and thus making it high enough to matter and let him contribute meaningfully either as a Lore guy/tactitian or social guy), he is sacrificing attributes elsewhere, and making himself less effective, while lacking the class abilities to make up for that, because his class abilities are all made with the assumption the fighter is making himself better.

Aside from skills, no there isn't. So far 5e has no forced secondary stat providing kicker bonuses.
A 5e warlord might not have a mandatory high Cha or Int either and be a pure Cha class. Or would be an Int class that could choose Dex or Str for weapons.

Oct 6, 2012 -- 11:28PM, wrecan wrote:

Oct 6, 2012 -- 9:42PM, The_Jester wrote:

If a warlord is defined a fighter with social skills, what happens when you give a 5e fighter a high Cha, a background with social skills, the Healer speciality, and role-play him as a leader?

What happens when you give a 5e cleric a high Strength, a background with equestrian skills, the ability to smite people, and role-play him as a paladin?

It cannot be that we don't have a class because you mutate a different class into a Frankenstein-style effigy of it.

I'm not a huge fan of the existance of the ranger/ barbarian/ paladin either since the paladin could very easily be handled via solid multclass rules. Or the druid as a "wildnerness" domain cleric.  
They survive because they're grandfathered into the game, being some of the first expansion classes. They're part of the game now. I would accept them going away in a new edition, but not 5e with it's design goal of being the "best of" edition. 

However, I do not feel the need to add more narrow class or hybrid classes to the game except when necassary. New base classes need to justify their existance and be broad and archetype covering a range of different roles and examples. 
I like the warlord. I really do. It was the first class I latched onto. I pushed my wife to play one in my 4e homegame to see it in action. I was incredibly annoyed that Essentialls and the later books never made a revised warlord because you could do some really, really cool things with the concept. My one 4e regret is that I never managed to play a warlord myself.
But I don't belive my personal likes and appreciations and strong enough to justify the class. 

Oct 6, 2012 -- 11:28PM, wrecan wrote:

The warlord is an archetype never before fulfilled in D&D.  Can we have a warlord-ish specialty?  Or Background?  Sure.  Just as we can have roguish specialty, or a clerical specialty.

I don't understand why so many people seem to be mortally offended at warlord joining the ranks of established classes.

The current lack of story.
Being a leader isn't a class, it's a role. it's something anyone should be able to do. That makes "leader" or "tactitan" good examples of something that could be a speciality. Anyone should be able to "lead" the party. I can easily picture a rogue leading from the back of the group, moving allies for a better flank. And Gandalf is the iconic leader wizard. We don't need a seperate class just to represent Gandalf because the current rules don't enable wizards to lead with mechanical bonuses. Or even the fighter, such as King Arthur or Tanis Half-Elven leading from the front lines (although, King Arthur is really be a paladin/bard).

Likewise, the visual and story and non-mechanical description of the warlord identical to the fighter. A leaderish fighter could theoretically do anything a warlord could do... and more.

I like the notion that the warlord grants temporary hp. That satisfies the need for them to act as a support/light healing class and still gives people who have trouble visualizing a non magical warlord that's able to heal a way to get into the feel for the class.

You could take this a step further and have them incite emotions like a bard, only more battle oriented. Like what if a warlord could send his friends into a rage-like frenzy? How about if a warlord could allow adjacent allies to provide each other with cover, or impose disadvantage for flanking?

I can envision a number of very interesting effects for the warlord that don't involve healing at all. It'd be an interesting exercise to remove the warlord's healing and see what we could replace it with, if only for the sake of discussion.

Oct 6, 2012 -- 11:41PM, mellored wrote:

Warlord+wizard=bard. But a PRC with a low entry point is a class. And guild leader is a PRC.

Or fighter + bard = warlord.

That... might actually work really well. With an inspiration based bard build and that handles the morale aspects of the warlord. There are spells for some magical healing. And you still have the weapons and armour of the fighter.

Oct 7, 2012 -- 8:49AM, The_Jester wrote:

Oct 6, 2012 -- 11:41PM, mellored wrote:

Warlord+wizard=bard. But a PRC with a low entry point is a class. And guild leader is a PRC.

Or fighter + bard = warlord.

That... might actually work really well. With an inspiration based bard build and that handles the morale aspects of the warlord. There are spells for some magical healing. And you still have the weapons and armour of the fighter.

I think the warlord's schtick fits much better alongside the bard than the wizard. Fighter yes, wizard hell no. Bard? Hell yes.

How to make a Warlord: I'm a strong believer that there should be multiple ways to represent the same concept so that you can play the character that you want to play while being the maximum benefit to the party or having that "feel" that you want them to have. Just like your archer character could be an Archer Fighter, a Rogue, or a Ranger you should be able to make a Warlord how you want. A Fighter combat style is one way to go for a more combat heavy Warlord while a Rogue (Probably Thug) with a Warlord specialty would make a good pirate captain (Positioning allies to maximize his sneak attack opportunities) and then you'd have actual Warlords that do tactics and battlefield manipulation heads and tails above the rest.

Healing: Obviously any healing abilities should be to domain of inspiring warlords while tactical warlords would probably get damage reduction. I think they should be able to do their healing in a different way than Clerics though so that it feels different. That way it appeases to both people that want martial healing and those that don't want to step on the Cleric's toes. So what I propose is semi-passive healing. Warlords are constantly barking orders and shouting inspirations to their party members during battle. So so long as a Warlord is able to speak in combat (They'd be cut off by silence or trying to keep quiet) an Inspiring Warlord is able to heal one party member for half of their Charisma mod+level (So maxing at 12 HP at level 20) or they can shout general commands to heal half of that to all party members who can hear him. Likewise the Tactical Warlord would do the same but with damage reduction against the first attack they suffer that round and it'd use Intelligence instead of Charisma. This gives Warlords some healing but it's not as strong as the Cleric, who's main schtick is healing, but it'll definitely keep the party alive longer. A team with a well coordinated Warlord and Cleric could be very devastating and it should be that way since they're giving up raw power for survivability.

Tactics: Not to make Warlords too much like Clerics but what if a Warlords tactics worked in a similar way to Cleric prayers? You'd have two kinds of tactics: Minor and Major. Minor Tactics could be used as part of an attack, allowing small battlefield changes like moving an ally 5' to set up for a Rogue's sneak attack or to prevent an enemy from escaping. Major Tactics would take your action but would allow for major changes to the battlefield or relatively large temporary buffs to your allies.

I think these would keep Warlords unique and powerful and also keep them from stepping on toes.

Oct 7, 2012 -- 8:44AM, The_Jester wrote:

Being a leader isn't a class, it's a role.

No, it's a story the exact thing you claimed to need to justify a class.

I play warlords in almost every game I play.  That's just an archetype that appeals to me.  In Mage the Ascnesion, I played a member of the Synidicate, someone whose magic was based on getting his allies to do things they couldn't do on their own.  The warlord's story is "I ensure the team is more than the sum of its parts"

Other classes don't have that shtick, even the bard.  The bard is, as all entertainers are, about himself.  "I give you a bonus... here's a bonus for Joanie... Here's one for Sam."

A warlord is a coach, not a buffer.  He's a coach who knows how to play, but he also knows the quarterback has more on-the-field skills.

That is a great story, and it's one I've been trying to play, which little success, in D&D before 4e.  I tried it as a straight fighter.  I tried it as a cleric.  I tried it as a bard/illusionist.  I tried it as a wizard.  I tried it as a marshall in 3e, and it was so close, except the class was so underpowered it didn't quite work.  I've been trying to do it for probably half my D&D-playing life.  And I've only ever been successful at it with the warlord because it was the first class that was both balanced and dedicated to that story.

These little tests you throw out like caltrops are meaningless.  Asking for a photo is only highlighting that a warlord's shtick is not based on his weapon or armor proficiencies.  It's an absurd demand.

The warlord is it's own story,  Maybe because you never played it, you don't realize what a gift to the game the warlord was.  But I don't want to go back to trying to cobble together a warlord from bits and pieces of bards, clerics, backgrounds, and specialties. I won't go back to that, not after I finally experienced something I've been awaiting for 26 years.  And I see no reason Wizards would deny the warlord for me and people who feel as I do.

I'm sorry you can't see it.  The warlord may not be visually different from a fighter.  But he is different in the way that someone who is a team captain but not the star athelete is different from a star athlete who is not the team captain.  They bring different things to the table.  They tell very very different stories.

Oct 7, 2012 -- 9:02AM, wrecan wrote:

I'm sorry you can't see it.  The warlord may not be visually different from a fighter.  But he is different in the way that someone who is a team captain but not the star athelete is different from a star athlete who is not the team captain.  They bring different things to the table.  They tell very very different stories.

Alright then, let's change that. I think I've said as much as I can say without repeating myself more than six times. Let's try and change the focus of the coversation.

How Can the Warlord be Different? 

Just that. How can we reflavour and tweak the class to keep its warlordiness while stepping less on the fighter's toes. Similar to attempts to make the sorcerer less of a wizard clone in PF/4e/5e.
But let's do this without mechanics; it's easy to think of a half-dozen different mechanics to make a class stand out. Instead, let's do this mostly with ideas that could instead form a mechanical framework but are currently limited to flavour and story. 

Go! 

Oct 7, 2012 -- 8:44AM, The_Jester wrote:

The role of combat medic is overstated anyway. The focus on in-combat healing was very much focused and emphasised in 4e play and is an extension of MMO play where the in-combat healer is a much larger role. It makes great sense from 4e's design focus on giving everyone something to do in combat, but might not necassarily be as necassary all the time in 5e.
When playing earlier editions, the frequency a cleric would be using their healing mid-fight will vary greatly between groups, between levels, and between play style. Many quick short fights means there's less incentive to have an in-combat healer and an out-of-combat healer might work just fine at prolonging the combat day.

I agree, in older editions heals were rarely used in combat because they were largely inneffective relative to damage dealt. For example in 3.5e, outside of occasionally stabilizing an unconscious ally, I don't think I ever saw an in combat heal until level 11+ when the Heal spell came online (which is basically the only spell whose healing capability even pretended like it could match damage output from a level appropriate enemy).

That said, I preferred 4e's healing mechanic, where hit points were more moderate (higher at low levels, lower at high levels), and the hit points would fluctuate more both up and down in combat. Yes, it is a design philosophy difference between 3e and 4e, but it is one I would prefer to see embraced, because it lets different characters be doing different things in combat, rather than the main goal being everyone just rushing to deal as much damage as quickly as possible.

Oct 6, 2012 -- 9:46PM, Seerow wrote:

As an aside, the Fighter has little to no incentive to have any mental attribute as a decent stat. All of his class features and combat capability key off of str(or dex) and con. By taking another attribute as a primary/secondary (and thus making it high enough to matter and let him contribute meaningfully either as a Lore guy/tactitian or social guy), he is sacrificing attributes elsewhere, and making himself less effective, while lacking the class abilities to make up for that, because his class abilities are all made with the assumption the fighter is making himself better.

Aside from skills, no there isn't. So far 5e has no forced secondary stat providing kicker bonuses.
A 5e warlord might not have a mandatory high Cha or Int either and be a pure Cha class. Or would be an Int class that could choose Dex or Str for weapons.

I wasn't talking about the secondary stat regarding warlords, I was talking about an Inspiring Warlord vs a Tactical Warlord, ie two different builds with different primary stats.

And you completely ignore the point that the Fighter, as the front liner, is wanting high strength or dex, and high constitution. Moreso than other classes who aren't specifically supposed to be the meat shield up front. If you try to give the Fighter primary level int or charisma, his capability as a front liner will go down. On the other hand, the Warlord would be designed specifically with the primary attribute being Int/Cha in mind. 

I'm not a huge fan of the existance of the ranger/ barbarian/ paladin either since the paladin could very easily be handled via solid multclass rules. Or the druid as a "wildnerness" domain cleric.  
They survive because they're grandfathered into the game, being some of the first expansion classes. They're part of the game now. I would accept them going away in a new edition, but not 5e with it's design goal of being the "best of" edition.

If 5e has the goal of being the "best of" edition, why is it so hard for you to accept an extremely favored class from 4th edition as one that deserves a space simply by virtue of being "best of" 4th edition? If you can grandfather in classes from older editions, why not accept that you can grandfather in a class from 4e? 

As others have pointed out to you repeatedly, and you continuously ignore, the Warlord was a very popular class, probably top 3 among 4e players. Refusing to allow it to have a place in the game is a big middle finger to the fans of that game, and extremely hypocritical when other classes that have less justification for existing continue to do so just because they're older. There's a sentiment among many 4e fans that the development is trying to avoid anything 4e just because. You want to solidify that opinion and break the fanbase again, leaving out the Warlord is the way to do it.

I like the warlord. I really do. It was the first class I latched onto. I pushed my wife to play one in my 4e homegame to see it in action. I was incredibly annoyed that Essentialls and the later books never made a revised warlord because you could do some really, really cool things with the concept. My one 4e regret is that I never managed to play a warlord myself. 
But I don't belive my personal likes and appreciations and strong enough to justify the class.

You're a hoot. You go across all the forum repeatedly talking about how Warlords shouldn't be a class and fail as a character concept, but really you do like them! Give me a break. Your appeal to seem more moderate is transparent.

If the warlord is stepping on the fighter's toes so are the cleric, sorcerer, and rogue. Weapon proficiences do not make a fighter, this is not Basic.

hmm some kind of mass fast healing ability could be pretty cool. Like the vigour spells in 3.5.

@Seerow: You attributed something that The Jester said to me, and I would never have said that.  Could you go back and fix that?

@Jester: Other than both the warlord using weapons, I don't see how they step on each other's toes.

The warlords' schtick is that he gets his allies to work better together than they could work alone.  He can do that by creating openings for his allies, by creating scenarios in which the allies complement one another and by encouraging and bolstering his allies.  I think this third element, which does overlap with the bard is in fact the least important part of the warlord class.  More important is the warlord's ability to create openings for his allies, or to get his allies to close openings exposed to their enemies. 

I know you didn't want to discuss mechanics, but to me the warlord's signature ability is not his martial healing or his buffs.  It's his ability to use one of his actions to give one of his allies a reaction.  That's not something I think is appropriate for a fighter, who concentrates on the use of weapons, not the use of allies.

There was a saying in 4e, which I think sums it up well:

A barbarian wields axes; a warlord wields barbarians.

A charismatic fighter can give advice, but he is not as effective as a warlord.   A warlord may wield a sword, but he doesn't do it as well as his fighter ally.   The fighter spent his training learning how to wield his weapons.  The warlord spent that time learning how to wield his allies.  The warlord's presence allows the fighter to wield the sword twice as effectively (if the warlord concentrates on the fighter to the exclusion of his other allies).

I see warlords as having a more defined schtich then bards.  Bards are a mish-mash.

And again, nothing about a warlord say's you need to hit things.  Lazylords as they are called, dump strength and only have Int and Cha.  They shout orders from the back.  Like a boxing coach, they know all about the tactics, shout encuragements, point out weakness, and bandage wounds, but they are far from fighters themselves.

Oct 7, 2012 -- 9:25AM, wrecan wrote:

@Seerow: You attributed something that The Jester said to me, and I would never have said that.  Could you go back and fix that?

Fixed. I really wish these forums would have quote author = 'name' rather than a random number string.  Would make formatting these things much easier.

Oct 7, 2012 -- 9:25AM, wrecan wrote:

@Seerow: You attributed something that The Jester said to me, and I would never have said that.  Could you go back and fix that?

@Jester: Other than both the warlord using weapons, I don't see how they step on each other's toes.

The warlords' schtick is that he gets his allies to work better together than they could work alone.  He can do that by creating openings for his allies, by creating scenarios in which the allies complement one another and by encouraging and bolstering his allies.  I think this third element, which does overlap with the bard is in fact the least important part of the warlord class.  More important is the warlord's ability to create openings for his allies, or to get his allies to close openings exposed to their enemies. 

I know you didn't want to discuss mechanics, but to me the warlord's signature ability is not his martial healing or his buffs.  It's his ability to use one of his actions to give one of his allies a reaction.  That's not something I think is appropriate for a fighter, who concentrates on the use of weapons, not the use of allies.

There was a saying in 4e, which I think sums it up well:

A barbarian wields axes; a warlord wields barbarians.

Fighters don't "wield" their allies.  A warlord does.  A warlord may wield a sword, but he doesn't do it as well as his fighter ally.   But the warlord's presence allows the fighter to wield the sword twice as effectively (if the warlord concentrates on the fighter to the exclusion of his other allies).

Lol. That reminds me of a time I was playing a Warforged 2h Fighter, and the new guy was playing a taclord. After the first time he let me charge in ahead of everyone to wreak havoc anddestruction, he always started the fights with "I throw my Fighter at them". Referring to me as "his Fighter". 

FIGHTERDOKEN!

Pictures...

Fighter with armor and his weapon. Show

Warlord with his weapons and a magic helm Show

See a difference?

Oct 7, 2012 -- 9:14AM, Seerow wrote:

And you completely ignore the point that the Fighter, as the front liner, is wanting high strength or dex, and high constitution. Moreso than other classes who aren't specifically supposed to be the meat shield up front. If you try to give the Fighter primary level int or charisma, his capability as a front liner will go down. On the other hand, the Warlord would be designed specifically with the primary attribute being Int/Cha in mind. 

Nitpicking: A good defender in 4e should also try and stack stats in his other defences, and a Int could work just as well as a high Dex. And in builds that don't use Wis as a kicker stat, a fighter could stack Cha.  

Oct 7, 2012 -- 9:14AM, Seerow wrote:

I'm not a huge fan of the existance of the ranger/ barbarian/ paladin either since the paladin could very easily be handled via solid multclass rules. Or the druid as a "wildnerness" domain cleric.  
They survive because they're grandfathered into the game, being some of the first expansion classes. They're part of the game now. I would accept them going away in a new edition, but not 5e with it's design goal of being the "best of" edition.

If 5e has the goal of being the "best of" edition, why is it so hard for you to accept an extremely favored class from 4th edition as one that deserves a space simply by virtue of being "best of" 4th edition? If you can grandfather in classes from older editions, why not accept that you can grandfather in a class from 4e? 

As others have pointed out to you repeatedly, and you continuously ignore, the Warlord was a very popular class, probably top 3 among 4e players. Refusing to allow it to have a place in the game is a big middle finger to the fans of that game, and extremely hypocritical when other classes that have less justification for existing continue to do so just because they're older. There's a sentiment among many 4e fans that the development is trying to avoid anything 4e just because. You want to solidify that opinion and break the fanbase again, leaving out the Warlord is the way to do it.

Designing a game shouldn't be a popularity contest. If it was they'd be bringing in the Summoner from Pathfinder, which is one of the top 3 classes in that system (which is arguably more popular than 4e.) 
Catering explicitly to one audience over another is a bad idea regardless of the audience. Giving 4e fans a class just for them because gosh darn it they like it so much is insulting to fans of all the other editions. If all the 1e fans got together and demanded the thief-acrobat be added to the game it wouldn't automatically make it a good and unique addition. 
If it fills a narrative and mechanical gap to large to be filled by anything else, then an addition is justified, or if something can be added seamlessly and into the whole that's fine. I can accept the swordmage being added to 5e under those grounds as the gish is something people want to play, is often difficult to replicate in the rules, and is to big to be just a build. And multiclassing is not perfect as that takes multiple levels before the player can play what they want.

Oct 7, 2012 -- 9:14AM, Seerow wrote:

I like the warlord. I really do. It was the first class I latched onto. I pushed my wife to play one in my 4e homegame to see it in action. I was incredibly annoyed that Essentialls and the later books never made a revised warlord because you could do some really, really cool things with the concept. My one 4e regret is that I never managed to play a warlord myself. 
But I don't belive my personal likes and appreciations and strong enough to justify the class.

You're a hoot. You go across all the forum repeatedly talking about how Warlords shouldn't be a class and fail as a character concept, but really you do like them! Give me a break. Your appeal to seem more moderate is transparent.

I just refuse to believe my personal feelings regarding a class outweigh the design overlap. Just because I like something does not make it necassary. I wouldn't want the designers at WotC to let their personal biases trump tight design or lead to unecassary bloat. Why should I hold my opinions to a different standard?
Feel free to go and read through my blog. There's many posts where I expose my love of the warlord (while also reiterating my thoughts that it's a leader build of the fighter).

Oct 7, 2012 -- 9:56AM, The_Jester wrote:

Designing a game shouldn't be a popularity contest.

Regardless of all the other stuff you keep saying appropos of nothing... YES!!!  YES, popularity should be a consideration for design.  Because you can have the most mathematically precise gamein the world, but if nobody likes it, you just watsed your time and money.

This is a business.  Popularity matters.  You can try to take the contrarian path by dismissing "popular" taste as contemptuous or irrelevant, but it's not.  People like things so they get included.  Now I have no idea if warlord is popular enough to merit inclusion on that ground alone, and I don't care, since I'm not relying on the popularity of the warlord for its conclusion, but the statement of yous that I just quoted needed its own separate response, because you either horribly misstated what you meant, or you are advocating that D&D be built without regard for its ability to recoup the investment its owners are making in it which, to put it frankly, is an insane position.

If it was they'd be bringing in the Summoner from Pathfinder, which is one of the top 3 classes in that system (which is arguably more popular than 4e.)

If the Summoner is that popular, they absolutely should include it in 5e!!!!  I can't even imagine what thought process leads you to the conclusion that popular concepts should be eschewed.

Catering explicitly to one audience over another is a bad idea regardless of the audience.

Including a class does not cater to one audience over another, because people who don't play warlords aren't affected by its inclusion in the game!!  It's not a zero-sum game as far as classes are concerned.

Giving 4e fans a class just for them because gosh darn it they like it so much is insulting to fans of all the other editions.

In no way does this sentence make any sense.  Nobody is insulted by including the warlord because 4e players like it. 

If all the 1e fans got together and demanded the thief-acrobat be added to the game it wouldn't automatically make it a good and unique addition.

If it were that popular, then yes, it would!!  It absolutely would.  The thief-acrobat, however, does not seem to be that popular as I have never heard of any campaign to include it.

I just refuse to believe my personal feelings regarding a class outweigh the design overlap.

The proble, Jester, is that people have given you reason s that have nothing to do with your personal tatses, and you've been not only dismissive, but in the above-quotes, you've been downright nasty and bordering on edition warring.  I don't know whether you really are such a fan of the warlord, and I read your blog religiously.  But I do know you have a horrible tendency to make up your mind about something and then solicit contrary opinions just to ignore them.

You've made up your mind that the warlord is not unique enough to merit a class.  You've decided this base don an ivory-tower analysis because as you admit, you've never played the class.  And in order to preserve this position you've staked out, you simply ignore anybody who has actually played the class and reports it being a different experience, you have derided any suposed popularity of the class as somehow not being sufficient to merit making even a business decision to include it, and you've even begin to descend into rank edition warring to defend your position.

What the hell?!

Oct 7, 2012 -- 9:56AM, The_Jester wrote:

Designing a game shouldn't be a popularity contest. If it was they'd be bringing in the Summoner from Pathfinder, which is one of the top 3 classes in that system (which is arguably more popular than 4e.)

Well to be fair, not making sure 4e was similar enough in presentation with enough familiar faces from 3e could be said to be the thing that really screwed the entire edition's print run, though I'm aware there was mismanagement to take into consideration as well.

It might be argued that 4e's core mistake was a failure to recognise the popularity contest inherent in marketing.

The catch is your personal feelings are irrelevant, they are an inferior argument either way they point, however they seem to be the primary basis of your opposition.

You haven't managed to refute our points. Primarily that the warlord is the most distinct and different class since the first 4. From a game design, distinctiveness, archetype, and story stand point the Warlord is on par with the Rogue, the Fighter, The Cleric, and the Wizard. This is something that no other class since those four can claim. You don't have any logical refutes for this.

You just keep blitheirng on abut weapons and how it steps on the fighter's toes, which it doesn't. Given the same enemies to fight a Fighter with a warlord does more damage, not less, and does it faster. Clerics would use their superior self buffs and eat into the fighter's damage count, wizards would end the battle with sleep, hold, or web, rogues would ninja the kill. Only the warlord would make the figther fight better and be making the best use of it's abilities. 

The narrative gap filled by the warlord is so vast that people have been treating it as a terrain feature such as the grand canyon or the massive empty space in the middle of a ring world.

The mechanical space is simalrly huge, action grant, tactical maneuvers, these are huge broad categories that the other classes do not have, the fighter has combat maneuvers sure, but those are all about the fighter doing things. The warlord maneuvers can affect the whole party.

Oct 7, 2012 -- 10:18AM, rampant wrote:

Only the warlord would make the figther fight better and be making the best use of it's abilities.

To be fair, the bard does that too, but only because it is incidental to the bard's schtick -- the power of music.  And music inspires, so bards get to inspire people to be better.  But that's a very different story from the warlord, which The Jester professes to be the thing that justifies a class, and yet...

I dunno the bard tends to like to end combats via sleep or web just as much as the wizard.

I've mentioned a couple of times that I see the warlord as the more "front line" verison of the bard, and I'm sticking by it.

If you're gonna go down the "support through inspiration" road, the warlord and bard are related in the same way the fighter and rogue are.

But I think that's part of the problem, 'cause there's a feeling that the bard all ready sort of does this so a warlord is, in their eyes, a more norse arechetype of bard.

In a game where people have argued the the samaurai warrior was somehow different from a fighter in any way but name and attitude, I don't really see why folks moan about the warlord.

Even if it was a conglomeration of existing classes, that'd be enough to justify it as a character class in D&D.

I really, really wish we could see some of the multiclassing rules so we have a better idea about what things can be successfully done with it. That'd clear up much of this exchange.

Oct 7, 2012 -- 9:09AM, The_Jester wrote:

Alright then, let's change that. I think I've said as much as I can say without repeating myself more than six times. Let's try and change the focus of the coversation.

How Can the Warlord be Different? 

Just that. How can we reflavour and tweak the class to keep its warlordiness while stepping less on the fighter's toes. Similar to attempts to make the sorcerer less of a wizard clone in PF/4e/5e.
But let's do this without mechanics; it's easy to think of a half-dozen different mechanics to make a class stand out. Instead, let's do this mostly with ideas that could instead form a mechanical framework but are currently limited to flavour and story. 

Go! 

Oct 7, 2012 -- 9:25AM, wrecan wrote:

Other than both the warlord using weapons, I don't see how they step on each other's toes.

That's like saying that other than using the same spells, the sorcerer didn't step on the wizard's toes. 
Warlords are a little like sorcerers if you remove the story of inborn power. 

It's also the lack of distinct visual cues. Sorcerers are differentiated from wizards often by portraying them as younger, wilder, and unreliant on items. They don't have books or scrolls and often have weapons. Tattoos are also a good give away. Warlords look a heck of a lot like fighters. There are no holy symbols and non-standard weapons (like the cleric) to differentiate the warlord. There is no shining knight archetypes with gold-plated armour (like the paladin). There is no light armour with natural colours paired with a bow or twin weapons (like the ranger). Or even the faithful mount with the armoured figure atop (like the cavalier).

When I say "picture a fighter" it conjurs an image of what a fighter looks like. When I say "picture a warlord" it conjurs an image of what the warlord is doing. It's a class defined by action, not by image, story, or narrative. 

In short, warlords need a hook. They need a visuals associated with them. And, potentially, some story hooks. They need their "born into magic" differentiation. 

Oct 7, 2012 -- 9:25AM, wrecan wrote:

The warlords' schtick is that he gets his allies to work better together than they could work alone.  He can do that by creating openings for his allies, by creating scenarios in which the allies complement one another and by encouraging and bolstering his allies.  I think this third element, which does overlap with the bard is in fact the least important part of the warlord class.  More important is the warlord's ability to create openings for his allies, or to get his allies to close openings exposed to their enemies.  

I know you didn't want to discuss mechanics, but to me the warlord's signature ability is not his martial healing or his buffs.  It's his ability to use one of his actions to give one of his allies a reaction.  That's not something I think is appropriate for a fighter, who concentrates on the use of weapons, not the use of allies. 
A charismatic fighter can give advice, but he is not as effective as a warlord.   A warlord may wield a sword, but he doesn't do it as well as his fighter ally. The fighter spent his training learning how to wield his weapons.  The warlord spent that time learning how to wield his allies.  The warlord's presence allows the fighter to wield the sword twice as effectively (if the warlord concentrates on the fighter to the exclusion of his other allies).

This is a bit more mechanical than I'd like for the discussion but it has interesting character building implications: 
If I were to design a 5e warlord class, I might make the primary stat Intelligence or Charisma (dependant on build) and leave everything else open. If the class has reasonable armour and weapon proficiences that would mean people who wanted the melee warlord could throw a high number into Str and wade into battle. Or they could just as easily put the high stat into Dex and use a bow. Or they could stay out of melee alltogether and stack Cha and Int. 

It's a design that also deflates some of the "anybody can be a leader" argument. Instead of a ranger leader a more flexible warlord could do light armour and use a bow, take a woodsman background, and fill that same archetype. Multiclassing can fill in some of the gaps when needed.

A visual that just came to me is the standard. 
i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/JesterCa...

The war flag or battle ensign or Vexillum. Instead of playing music to inspire like the bard, a warlord might plant their flag and give a rallying cry. 

Oct 7, 2012 -- 9:25AM, wrecan wrote:

There was a saying in 4e, which I think sums it up well: A barbarian wields axes; a warlord wields barbarians.

I heard the 3e artificer described as the class that "casts fighter on the enemy". 

The 3e artificer could cast anything at anyone, I once got replaced by the Party's artificer's new fast healing golem, and I wasn't playing a weak sauce class like fighter or ranger, I was the bloody Druid!

Dude freaking pod personed me!

Oct 7, 2012 -- 10:29AM, The_Jester wrote:

If I were to design a 5e warlord class, I might make the primary stat Intelligence or Charisma (dependant on build) and leave everything else open. If the class has reasonable armour and weapon proficiences that would mean people who wanted the melee warlord could throw a high number into Str and wade into battle. Or they could just as easily put the high stat into Dex and use a bow. Or they could stay out of melee alltogether and stack Cha and Int. 

+1.  Though that's more or less how they work in 4e.

You can take "skirmishing warlord" and use bows (admittedly, with Str, but they still use ranged powers.  Dex is good).
And you can build Int/Cha, and never attack yourself (lazylord).



I imagine we'd basicly have 3 main features of a warlord.

Attack Granting (Direct the strike): As an action, you can have an ally attack with his reaction.

Tactical Boost: Movement and/or Inititve boost based of Int. (shift when you roll inititive).

Moral Boost: THP, healing, or the like based on Cha.  (possibly durring a short rest).

+2 to hit, medium armor, martial weapons.


After that, we break down into sub-classes.

The bard and the cleric both dabble in the kind of boosting a warlord has mastered, much the way a bard dabbles in the healing a cleric has mastered.

Warlords have nothing in common with sorcs except high charisma.

And while I might grant you that the image of a warlord is a touch fuzzy, the story and narrative of the warlord is solidly defined, more so than your arguments.

Any idiot can be a flag bearer, and many warlords wouldn't be caught dead with a flag. 

We have explained time and again the warlord's schtick. He doesn't a need a gimmick, especially a stupid one like a flag.
 
If you have to give him a gimmick give him a cool one like a minion to push around.

As for the weapons-spells bit, that's a function of investment, see spells are powerful abilities that change the way a character plays, weapons are not so signifigant. The sorc and the wizard trample each other's toes and get into slap fights because they are trying to do the same thing with largely the same abilities, this is especially bad in editions where they have the EXACT same spell list (i don't mind some over lap but i really think the sorcs should be more limited in their spell selection based on bloodline, while the wizards should learn spells based on academic groups like schools of magic). Weapons in 5e are just kinda meh and forgettable.

In 4e weapon choice was important, 5e seems to favor the 3e approach to weapon impact, i.e. less and less as the level goes up.

The warlord is defined by action and narrative, that's better than image.



Also spending the ally's reaction to make the granted attack is a bad idea. Not only does it mean that he can't use his reaction for class or specialty powers, it essentially doubles the cost of granting an action and means you can't grant to someone who's used a reaction. The warlord is already giving up his action you don't need to ratchet the price up.

The Jester: That's like saying that other than using the same spells, the sorcerer didn't step on the wizard's toes.[/quote]

No, it's not, because a weapon isn't a spell, it's an implement.  The fighter's spells, in Next, are his combat superiority options and a warlord wouldn't get those.

The appropriate analogy is that: warlord's weapons : fighter's weapons :: wizard's spell components : sorcerer's spell components.

And that said, I think the sorcerer overlaps with the wizard a lot more than the warlord overlaps with the fighter or bard.

The Jester: It's also the lack of distinct visual cues.

Why?  Why does a class require visual clues.  I thought, the basis of a class was the story it tells, and I thought that was an astute onbservation on your part, but you keep retreating from the implications of that statement, and retreating to superficial comparisons like "visual cues".

The Jester: Sorcerers are differentiated from wizards often by portraying them as younger, wilder, and unreliant on items.

Unreliant on items?!  In every edition of D&D in which sorcerers appeared, they used the same spell components and implements as wizards.  So I have no idea where you get the idea that sorcerers are not reliant on items, and the eact same items that wizards rely upon.

Moreover, only one build of sorcerer was "wilder".  In 3e, sorcerers were simply distinguished by innate ability vs. learned ability, and that had no visual clues to distinguish them.  In 4e, sorcerers were distinguished from wizards from where they got their power, and only the chaos sorcerer was wild.  The dragon, storm, and cosmis sorcerers were not "wild".  They simply specialized in a specific type of magic.  Dragon sorcerers liked flame, cold, lightning, acid attacks.  Storm liked winds, lightning and thunder.  Cosmic had a weird cyclical gimmick.  Elementalists were like dragon sorcerers essentialized.

The difference between sorcerers and wizards has always been that sorcerers were innately magical, while wizards studied it.  But visually, there was little difference.  Maybe sorcerers tended to wear casual clothes, while wizards favored robes and pointy hats.

The difference between warlords and fighters is that a warlord studies tactics, allies, and opponents, while fighters study weapons and armor.  I don't know how that is visually distinguished, and, frankly, I think that has nothing to do with whether a class is distinct.

The Jester: When I say "picture a fighter" it conjurs an image of what a fighter looks like. When I say "picture a warlord" it conjurs an image of what the warlord is doing. It's a class defined by action, not by image, story, or narrative.

Yeah, I know what "picture" means.  I see no reaosn why the "picture" is what defines a class. It never did before.  The assassin did not appear different than a rogue.  The cleric and paladin didn't appear different (at least once they dropped the ban on sharp weapons for the cleric).  The wizard and sorcerer don't appear different.

If I were forced to concoct a difference, I would not give a warlord in the most potent weapons or armor.  A warlord doesn't need to wear full plate or wield pole arms.  He needs some mobility to get around the battlefield and support and direct his allies.  He is a field marhsal, shoring up flanks, looking for weaknesses.  He needs a bit more mobility than a fighter, though not as much as a rogue or ranger.

The Jester: In short, warlords need a hook. They need a visuals associated with them.

You can't simply keep saying it as if you've explained it.  Visuals were never important for distinguishing classes before.  The only reason it appears important to you now, it appears, is because it justifies your decision that warlords are indistinct from fighters.

The Jester: It's a design that also deflates some of the "anybody can be a leader" argument.

Who makes that argument?!  Anybody can lead, but nobody as well as a warlord.  Just like anybody can swing a sword but not as well as a fighter.  Anybody can stab someone in the back, but not as well as a rogue.  Anybody can shoot a bow, but not as well as an archer-ranger. 

The Jester: Instead of playing music to inspire like the bard, a warlord might plant their flag and give a rallying cry.

Ugh.  Why are you incapable of thinkign of a warlord except as reflavored member of a different class. A warlord doesn't play a battle standard like a bard plays a lute.  A warlord is a tactician.  His most potent tool is his brain.


The Jester: I heard the 3e artificer described as the class that "casts fighter on the enemy".

I don't know why.  The artificer did very little for the fighter except buff him like a bard.  At any rate, the artificer has very little chance of escaping the Eberron hole.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around how including the Warlord could possibly be detrimental to the game, much less insulting to fans of previous editions as Jester indicates.

Oct 7, 2012 -- 8:44AM, The_Jester wrote:

..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Likewise, the visual and story and non-mechanical description of the warlord identical to the fighter. A leaderish fighter could theoretically do anything a warlord could do... and more.

The thing you ignore in this entire long post is that the Leader is a character archetype. Yes, you can have characters that are something and a leader, but without the warlord there's no way to make a character that is defined by being a leader. There is no really compelling reason not to bring it back as a full class.

I would say that the large player base desire for it as a character option which can be the full defining focus of their character is exactly the best reason to make something as a class.

 Even a fighter fighting style is only going to provide it with some leading maneuvers. Sure, include a Gritty Sergeant fighting style, but don't try to tell me that a few maneuvers equals the full defining focus of a character.

And, as I've said before, the warlord doesn't need to be limited to combat leading/influence. There's no reason not to give the class interaction and exploration options which lend themselves to leading people. In fact, there's every reason to do so.

Oct 7, 2012 -- 11:07AM, rampant wrote:

We have explained time and again the warlord's schtick. He doesn't a need a gimmick, especially a stupid one like a flag.

But England conquered the world through the cunning use of flags...

Out of curiosity, Jester, I went through your blog archives to see whether you really were as pro-warlord as you claimed.  And while you mentioned casually that your wife played a warlord, there's very little of you saying you actually like the class, except often as a preface before you explain why the warlord isn't a class.  Sort of like when someone says, "I really value the work you've done for the compan, Dave, but we have to let you go."

Here's what I found:
December 29, 2009: " I’m going to write about options and additions to the system to add injury and wounds to the game. In essence, this is adding a mechanic to represent physical damage that cannot be slept-off or shouted-away by a warlord... Healing is suddenly not just magical, but it can have a balanced and equally effective medicinal or morale component. Bards and warlords use encouragement and inspiration to get their allies back on their feet. While this makes divine magic less special"

This came off as a snide put-down of martial healing. Warlords make clerics less special!

March 3, 2011: "The warlord, brand new to 4e yet a great concept, takes the best part of the marshal from 3e and makes it better. While many people balked at a new cleric-style class I really dug the idea and it’s become one of my favourite leaders... There’s something inherently silly about the warlord shouting at a fallen ally to heal them. I always wince when this comes-up."

And we begin with the "I love the warlord but... it's a really silly class that makes me wince."


January 9, 2012: "what’s a warlord but a fighter using leader build?... Goodbye to the grid-filling classes: the avenger becomes a paladin build, the invoker a cleric build, the warlord a fighter build, the shaman a druid build (with a spirit as their animal companion) and so on... While I love the warlord, it really is just a fighter in the leader role as it’s hard to imagine a warlord defender or striker being different than a fighter."

This sounds like "The warlord is not really a class and really only exists to fill the grid... but I love it.  Really."


May 24, 2012: "I love the warlord. It’s such an interesting class with a great role. They do a lot of very fun things. But they don’t need to exist."

Again with the "The warlord has no reason to exist... I love it so much."


So no.  I don't think you love the warlord.  I think you want to love the warlord because your wife plays one, but really, you think it's a silly class that makes you wince, is a watered down cleric, or a fighter build that exists only to fill the grid.

Question should warlord and bard be merged into one class ?

Both deal with morale and boosting allies though they do it in difrent ways, the mecanic behind it could be the same for both classes.
with the scorcerer we already see that a dragon scorcerer is pretty specific and might feal a lot difrent from a scorcerer with a difrent heratidge.

So could we have 1 class that deals with morale, and have warlord and bard as class options within this class ?

or do people here see the 2 classes as so difrent that this woulden't be a option ?

Oct 7, 2012 -- 10:13AM, wrecan wrote:

Oct 7, 2012 -- 9:56AM, The_Jester wrote:

Designing a game shouldn't be a popularity contest.

 
Regardless of all the other stuff you keep saying appropos of nothing... YES!!!  YES, popularity should be a consideration for design.  Because you can have the most mathematically precise gamein the world, but if nobody likes it, you just watsed your time and money.

This is a business.  Popularity matters.  You can try to take the contrarian path by dismissing "popular" taste as contemptuous or irrelevant, but it's not.  People like things so they get included.  Now I have no idea if warlord is popular enough to merit inclusion on that ground alone, and I don't care, since I'm not relying on the popularity of the warlord for its conclusion, but the statement of yous that I just quoted needed its own separate response, because you either horribly misstated what you meant, or you are advocating that D&D be built without regard for its ability to recoup the investment its owners are making in it which, to put it frankly, is an insane position.

This is a personal overreaction. I really worry that catering to the vocal minority or small majority led very much to 4e, with all its inherent strengths and weaknesses. So I'm over cautious at suggesting listening to any one voice or any one group.

I concede that if something is popular enough it should be considered for inclusion. This is a no-brainer for rules modules and options and builds. But entire classes.... I just get nervous at the idea of any new classes. Again, personal thing. Likely residual from 2e where the DMG gave rules for new classes but heavily dissuaded you from using them.

I like fewer classes that are big tents rather than dozens of niche classes. And WotC can be pretty bad with class bloat. 4e wasn't as bad as 3e, but

Oct 7, 2012 -- 10:13AM, wrecan wrote:

Giving 4e fans a class just for them because gosh darn it they like it so much is insulting to fans of all the other editions.

 
In no way does this sentence make any sense.  Nobody is insulted by including the warlord because 4e players like it.

 
There have been a few arguments that, as the favourite 4e-exclusive class, the warlord should be included as a friendly nod to 4e loyalists. I just don't like the precedence that sets. It's allowing a minority of the fanbase to dictate the inclusion of core content. If the 4e fans "win" and get their pet class added to the game it doesn't feel that different (in a horribly fallacious slippery slope kinda way) from other token concepts being forced into the game but enthusiasts of older editions.

The 2nd Edition wild mage from Tome of Magic was kinda neat and itn't well reflected in the Core wizard (or sorcerer) options. I had a blast playing one in my 2e days. But I'd want the designers to think long and hard about its inclusion and if it would be better as a core class or as a speciality of an existing class.

Oct 7, 2012 -- 10:13AM, wrecan wrote:

The problem, Jester, is that people have given you reason s that have nothing to do with your personal tastes, and you've been not only dismissive, but in the above-quotes, you've been downright nasty and bordering on edition warring.  I don't know whether you really are such a fan of the warlord, and I read your blog religiously.  But I do know you have a horrible tendency to make up your mind about something and then solicit contrary opinions just to ignore them.

You've made up your mind that the warlord is not unique enough to merit a class.  You've decided this base don an ivory-tower analysis because as you admit, you've never played the class.  And in order to preserve this position you've staked out, you simply ignore anybody who has actually played the class and reports it being a different experience, you have derided any suposed popularity of the class as somehow not being sufficient to merit making even a business decision to include it, and you've even begin to descend into rank edition warring to defend your position.

What the hell?!

...

ouch

Oct 7, 2012 -- 11:10AM, wrecan wrote:

The Jester: It's also the lack of distinct visual cues. 

Why?  Why does a class require visual clues.  I thought, the basis of a class was the story it tells, and I thought that was an astute onbservation on your part, but you keep retreating from the implications of that statement, and retreating to superficial comparisons like "visual cues".

Visuals are important.

Three things sell a class and make people want to play it: the pictures in the book, the text in the book, and seeing it in play.

Given how big rulebooks are, it's hard to rely solely on the text to sell a class. The big four are easy, as everyone knows what they are. And many of the lesser classes have names familiar to video game players. So the warlord has to work hard to grab attention when everyone already knows what the other options do.

(Also, many game options just do not read as well as they play. So reading the book is often an inefficient way of understanding a class.)

When a new player (or old player unfamiliar with 4e) comes across the warlord, the very first thing they will see is the pictures. It sets their expectation and colours their perceptions of the class.

Pictures are also static. You cannot see the warlord's keen mind at work, you cannot get a sense of tactics or teamwork.

Art is important. It is by far the most expensive part of making an RPG book. Words are cheap. That's why 4e recycled so much art. But there's a reason RPGs and D&D have illustrations. Most of the iconic class abilities have a very descriptive and visual slant. Paladin's smite. You can visualize the holy energy surrounding a sword with motes of yellow-white light floating off from the impacting blade. Clerics and wizards cast spells. Rogues backstab. Fighters fight. Bards sing.
Warlords think.
That's lacking. I'm not saying it should go away or be underplayed or replaced by a fancier class feature. I'm just saying that to stand as a class warlords need more. Going through my 4e books looking for "warlord" art the pieces in Martial Power 1 & 2 caught my eye. The ones introducing the new warlord chapters. In both pieces the warlords are presented the same: standing and pointing at the enemy. That's the warlord, the dude who stands there and tells the party that the scary rage drake and manticore need to be killed. I think we could do better.

Oct 7, 2012 -- 11:10AM, wrecan wrote:

The Jester: When I say "picture a fighter" it conjures an image of what a fighter looks like. When I say "picture a warlord" it conjures an image of what the warlord is doing. It's a class defined by action, not by image, story, or narrative. 
Yeah, I know what "picture" means.  I see no reason why the "picture" is what defines a class. It never did before.  The assassin did not appear different than a rogue.  The cleric and paladin didn't appear different (at least once they dropped the ban on sharp weapons for the cleric).  The wizard and sorcerer don't appear different.

The similarities between the paladin and cleric and assassin and rogue have been a lengthy point of contention. When 5e comes to the class, there will be debates over whether the assassin should exist when we have the rogue. I'd be okay without an assassin, but since it's been in three editions it should be kept if a niche can be found/made. I liked what they did with the 4e assassin, emphasising poisons and shadow magic. So that's one way. 

Oct 7, 2012 -- 11:10AM, wrecan wrote:

If I were forced to concoct a difference, I would not give a warlord in the most potent weapons or armor.  A warlord doesn't need to wear full plate or wield pole arms.  He needs some mobility to get around the battlefield and support and direct his allies.  He is a field marhsal, shoring up flanks, looking for weaknesses.  He needs a bit more mobility than a fighter, though not as much as a rogue or ranger.

Ironically, I was going to suggest polearms as a warlord "thing". Fighters seem like the type of class to get right up close to the monster and attack, while warlords, even if in melee, strike me as wanting to be behind the fighter or a little farther away. More careful in their positioning.

But that might just be the result of my having listened to too many optimization suggestions that warlords should always have a reach weapon.

Oct 7, 2012 -- 11:10AM, wrecan wrote:

The Jester: It's a design that also deflates some of the "anybody can be a leader" argument. 

Who makes that argument?!  Anybody can lead, but nobody as well as a warlord.  Just like anybody can swing a sword but not as well as a fighter.  Anybody can stab someone in the back, but not as well as a rogue.  Anybody can shoot a bow, but not as well as an archer-ranger.

Well, I did. A while back, while arguing that you could make a case that "warlord" was a speciality. And given the name of the thread, the OP might agree.

I was stating that a more flexible warlord counters the OP and one of my earlier points against the warlord.  

Oct 7, 2012 -- 11:10AM, wrecan wrote:

The Jester: Instead of playing music to inspire like the bard, a warlord might plant their flag and give a rallying cry. 

Ugh.  Why are you incapable of thinking of a warlord except as reflavored member of a different class. A warlord doesn't play a battle standard like a bard plays a lute.  A warlord is a tactician.  His most potent tool is his brain.

Because two of the six builds exclusively use Charisma and Int can be a dump stat, one build is Cha/Wis, one is Cha or Int, and another is Int/Wis. Of the six builds only half can use Int and only one uses Int exclusively.
The warlord is really presented more as a Charismatic class.
 

Oct 7, 2012 -- 12:07PM, wrecan wrote:

Out of curiosity, Jester, I went through your blog archives to see whether you really were as pro-warlord as you claimed.  And while you mentioned casually that your wife played a warlord, there's very little of you saying you actually like the class, except often as a preface before you explain why the warlord isn't a class.  Sort of like when someone says, "I really value the work you've done for the compan, Dave, but we have to let you go."
...

So no.  I don't think you love the warlord.  I think you want to love the warlord because your wife plays one, but really, you think it's a silly class that makes you wince, is a watered down cleric, or a fighter build that exists only to fill the grid.

I'm a little disappointed with myself. But I shouldn't be too surprised. I learned a long time ago that I found it far easier to whine point out problem areas in a blog than praise, that my praising blogs came off as a little to sycophantic, and that constructive topics were gold.

I'm also surprised I didn't mention the warlord in the online game I played in for a couple years. He made us so awesome.

I think 90% of my blogged dislike for the warlord came from its healing, for noted and dead horse beaten reasons. 

Oct 7, 2012 -- 12:25PM, edwin_su wrote:

Question should warlord and bard be merged into one class ?

Both deal with morale and boosting allies though they do it in difrent ways, the mecanic behind it could be the same for both classes.
with the scorcerer we already see that a dragon scorcerer is pretty specific and might feal a lot difrent from a scorcerer with a difrent heratidge.

So could we have 1 class that deals with morale, and have warlord and bard as class options within this class ?

or do people here see the 2 classes as so difrent that this woulden't be a option ?

that'd totally be worth exploring it. I'm not sure anyone in this thread will though

@Jester

Ok, since a class' image is obviously very important, perhaps you wouldn't mind demonstrating so.

Now, number 1, is the following picture one of a Rogue, Assassin, or Thief? Why, and what makes it not one of the other classes?
Spoiler: Show

Number 2, is the following picture one of a Fighter in light armor, or a Ranger? Why and why not the other?
Spoiler: Show

You can make a warlord into a bard by adding a few levels of wizard and rogue.

Oct 7, 2012 -- 3:04PM, EnglishLanguage wrote:

@Jester

Ok, since a class' image is obviously very important, perhaps you wouldn't mind demonstrating so.

Now, number 1, is the following picture one of a Rogue, Assassin, or Thief? Why, and what makes it not one of the other classes?

Knowing the character the obvious answer is "assassin", which, if stating-up the character in 1e or 3e would make sense. In 4e he'd be a rogue since he  lacks shadow magic. 
Divorcing myself from that knowledge I'd still say rogue. Not sneaking looking enough to be a "thief" or an "assassin".

Oct 7, 2012 -- 3:04PM, EnglishLanguage wrote:

Number 2, is the following picture one of a Fighter in light armor, or a Ranger? Why and why not the other?

Fighter. Rangers are ussually presented as solitary figures. That dude's in a group. 

ok then what about this guy?

is that enough of a visual for you?

browse.deviantart.com/?qh=§ion=&glob...

Oct 7, 2012 -- 3:40PM, The_Jester wrote:

Knowing the character the obvious answer is "assassin", which, if stating-up the character in 1e or 3e would make sense. In 4e he'd be a rogue since he  lacks shadow magic. 
Divorcing myself from that knowledge I'd still say rogue. Not sneaking looking enough to be a "thief" or an "assassin".

Given his concealed weaponry(wrist blades), I wouldn't call it a stretch to call him an assassin.
And how can you tell he lacks shadow magic just by the picture?

Fighter. Rangers are ussually presented as solitary figures. That dude's in a group. 

Not always.
Plus a Fighter can also be someone skilled in multiple weapons. These guys only have a single weapon and are complete masters at it, not something exclusive to Fighters.

Oct 7, 2012 -- 3:58PM, EnglishLanguage wrote:

Oct 7, 2012 -- 3:40PM, The_Jester wrote:

Knowing the character the obvious answer is "assassin", which, if stating-up the character in 1e or 3e would make sense. In 4e he'd be a rogue since he  lacks shadow magic. 
Divorcing myself from that knowledge I'd still say rogue. Not sneaking looking enough to be a "thief" or an "assassin".

Given his concealed weaponry(wrist blades), I wouldn't call it a stretch to call him an assassin.
And how can you tell he lacks shadow magic just by the picture?

Actually, I'm not that familiar with the games, so the character very well might have all kinds of crazy magic powers that befit a 4e assassin. But you are correct that the picture does not suggest that one way or another. But as I said, my final call of "rogue" over "assassin" was due to the bright white colour scheme which is a little silly when your profession is sneaking up on people unnoticed. 

Assassins and rogues do have an unfortunate overlap that I'm not a fan of having both (as stated earlier), but accept it as inevitable due to the assassin's history in the game. 

Oct 7, 2012 -- 3:58PM, EnglishLanguage wrote:

Fighter. Rangers are ussually presented as solitary figures. That dude's in a group. 

Not always.
Plus a Fighter can also be someone skilled in multiple weapons. These guys only have a single weapon and are complete masters at it, not something exclusive to Fighters.

Traditionally fighters were exclusive one type of weapon: good with all weapons but the master of one. (The lack of specialization in 5e is a small problem IMHO.)
Rangers... well in 2e and 4e they could swap between melee and ranged. In 3e they were pretty focused on a single fighting style. I'm partial to the 2e/4e idea that rangers can do a bit of both and swap between ranged and melee, specifically because I think that seperates them from fighters who choose to focus on melee weapons or ranged weapons. 

Hang on a second.

Maybe Jester plays a different kind of D&D to the rest of us, where the DM holds up pictures of every NPC, room or area the characters see and the PCs all dress in character like LARPers.

Maybe he's playing D&D in a way where visuals are an important indication of what powers things have, because his DM always includes shadowy tendrils in the picture of any opponent using shadow magic and a halo of fire around any enemy with fire elemental damage.

But I think it's important for the rest of us to clarify that we don't play D&D that way.

Most of us play D&D without any visual references at all, with all the images constructed in our own imagination with a few ques from the DM and other players... at best we might have a picture of our own PC.

So, no Jester.

Images are NOT important to character definition in D&D.

Any more than the way you've totally ignored the several good responses you've had to "show me a picture of a Warlord that can't be a Fighter" is ok, nor your failure to respond to the lack of visual differentiation between Assassins and Rogues, Rangers and Druids, Clerics and Paladins, Wizards and Sorcerers.

Because you are WRONG that differentiation by image is significant.

But, more than that, you are also wrong about popularity... WotC are trying to make a LOT of money from Next.  More money than any RPG has ever made before in the history of the industry.

If they are going to do that then they DO absolutely have to make playable EVERY popular concept from previous editions, and from the games which present themselves as competition for D&D.  Because if they don't then they will never make those profit targets.

Thirdly you are also wrong about there being no story differences with Warlords.  This is absolutely untrue.

Warlords are leaders first, they are the people who focus on aiding and assisting others to maximise their combat potential over and above their own personal attacks in battle.  They are the tacticians and strategians who plan the optimal positions and timing for their team and snap out quick advice as well as calling pre-planned and practiced plays for everyone else to take advantage of.

They are the natural, or trained, officers who have a fingertip feel for the battlefield and who can bring back their allies from the brink of death with a yelled order, or an appeal to their loyalty, or just by calling out their name (seriously, have you NOT seen this on every TV show from Cop shows through to Soap Operas) and inspire them to fight on dispite injury to take down just one more foe.

It is absolute and UTTER bull-SHE-ite to claim that this is the story of a "Fighter".

Or anything less than justification for a full class.






Or, maybe Jester really doesn't care and is just trolling...

If so, well done.

Now, go pester someone else... the adults have a grown up conversation to have.                                        

I realise this is just one paragraph in a much larger post, but it illustrates just what it is I don't like about martial healing:

Oct 7, 2012 -- 5:37PM, Admiral-JCJF wrote:

They are the natural, or trained, officers who have a fingertip feel for the battlefield and who can bring back their allies from the brink of death with a yelled order, or an appeal to their loyalty, or just by calling out their name (seriously, have you NOT seen this on every TV show from Cop shows through to Soap Operas) and inspire them to fight on dispite injury to take down just one more foe.

Given the abstraction of HP, in 90% of cases this sort of mechanic makes for an awesome and cinematic method of getting your heroic comrades to fight on despite seemingly impossible odds just like Bruce Willis. This is a good thing IMHO, and helps make for the sort of environment that the players form memories that last years playing.

The other 10% of the time I find martial healing to be too much of a stretch to suspend my disbelief though. How is an exceptional motivational speaker supposed to heal someone who has just received 3rd degree burns over his whole body thanks to an unforeseen dip in lava? What about someone who has had their abdominal organs eaten by parasites, or drinking acid with a twist of lemon? Or someone who has just drunk acid in an attempt to kill parasites eating his abdominal organs.....? Mel Gibson did a decent job playing someone I'd consider a modern-day equivalent of a Warlord in We Were Soldiers, but I couldn't see anything he'd be able to do for the poor guy whose legs got melted by napalm.

The other leaders have the "magic" argument to fall back on when faced with seemingly impossible healing situations. It's a very general argument but a powerful one given the context of D&D. 

For what it's worth, I dislike the "extended rest" = "auto heal" mechanic for the same reason so I'm not just picking on the Warlord here.    

I suspect the reason the Warlord has healing mechanics in 4th edition is that it clearly fits into the leader role, and leaders are absolutely required to be able to heal their allies.

  

Oct 7, 2012 -- 5:37PM, Admiral-JCJF wrote:

Hang on a second.

Maybe Jester plays a different kind of D&D to the rest of us, where the DM holds up pictures of every NPC, room or area the characters see and the PCs all dress in character like LARPers.

Maybe he's playing D&D in a way where visuals are an important indication of what powers things have, because his DM always includes shadowy tendrils in the picture of any opponent using shadow magic and a halo of fire around any enemy with fire elemental damage.

But I think it's important for the rest of us to clarify that we don't play D&D that way.

Most of us play D&D without any visual references at all, with all the images constructed in our own imagination with a few ques from the DM and other players... at best we might have a picture of our own PC.

So, no Jester.

Images are NOT important to character definition in D&D.

Any more than the way you've totally ignored the several good responses you've had to "show me a picture of a Warlord that can't be a Fighter" is ok, nor your failure to respond to the lack of visual differentiation between Assassins and Rogues, Rangers and Druids, Clerics and Paladins, Wizards and Sorcerers.

Because you are WRONG that differentiation by image is significant.

But, more than that, you are also wrong about popularity... WotC are trying to make a LOT of money from Next.  More money than any RPG has ever made before in the history of the industry.

If they are going to do that then they DO absolutely have to make playable EVERY popular concept from previous editions, and from the games which present themselves as competition for D&D.  Because if they don't then they will never make those profit targets.

Thirdly you are also wrong about there being no story differences with Warlords.  This is absolutely untrue.

Warlords are leaders first, they are the people who focus on aiding and assisting others to maximise their combat potential over and above their own personal attacks in battle.  They are the tacticians and strategians who plan the optimal positions and timing for their team and snap out quick advice as well as calling pre-planned and practiced plays for everyone else to take advantage of.

They are the natural, or trained, officers who have a fingertip feel for the battlefield and who can bring back their allies from the brink of death with a yelled order, or an appeal to their loyalty, or just by calling out their name (seriously, have you NOT seen this on every TV show from Cop shows through to Soap Operas) and inspire them to fight on dispite injury to take down just one more foe.

It is absolute and UTTER bull-SHE-ite to claim that this is the story of a "Fighter".

Or anything less than justification for a full class.






Or, maybe Jester really doesn't care and is just trolling...

If so, well done.

Now, go pester someone else... the adults have a grown up conversation to have.                                        

There's no reason to get personal or abusive. That will just lead to an unsatisfying thread lock.

As I stated above, if picture were unimportant WotC would not have them in their books. Art is far more expensive to produce than words, adequate artists charge more than great writers, and good art takes longer to produce. RPG books would be half the price without art. There's an entire DDi column dedicated to art in the game and testing of monsters look right. The first thing WotC did to cut down production costs in their books was recycle art. If they could skip that cost altogether ether would. 

Art is huge. Art is important.  Being able to identify a class or a race in a single image cannot be understated. Look what you just wrote to describe a class. There's a good hundred words or more. But if the class is established right, if the foundation is solid, a single image should be able to capture and convey all those words, but do so in a glance and in a fraction of the time.

Ok fine you're a visual person, respond to some of the images we gave you.

Oct 7, 2012 -- 8:49PM, The_Jester wrote:

Art is huge. Art is important.  Being able to identify a class or a race in a single image cannot be understated. Look what you just wrote to describe a class. There's a good hundred words or more. But if the class is established right, if the foundation is solid, a single image should be able to capture and convey all those words, but do so in a glance and in a fraction of the time.

I have to join in the chorus of disagreeing voices. Art is important, I'll grant you, but why is identifying a class by art important. Art should establish tone. In a horror suplement for example, there should be pictures of parties traveling through foggy woods, or dank, dark tunnels, with only the dim light of a torch. There shouldn't be scenes of combat or anything like that, because horror is based on the unknown. However, in a high fantasy setting, there should be more scenes of high-magic, epic combats. Not as over the top as 4e, I'll grant you. Hell, I'll even grant you that monsters should be depicted and differentiated in their art, to give the players an idea of what they're fighting. So yes, art is important.

But why should class need to be something you can see? Monsters need clear descriptive art, since that provides the players a mental image of what they're fighting. But players get to decide how their characters behave and act and look. There won't be a single appearance of what a fighter looks like, or a cleric, or a sorcerer, or a wizard, or any of that. And their appearances will often overlap, because, guess what? You can't tell everything by looking at something. It's the whole, "can't judge a book by it's cover" thing. A paladin won't look much different than a Cleric who wears heavy armor.

But I suppose the only way that your theory works is if we make all the art in the books pictures of the stereotypical rogue and the stereotypical fighter, etc. I don't know about you, but I'd like the art to represent the broadness of characters, not the stereotypical looks of each of the characters. It's the reason I tend not to like iconics, because it gets the thought into peoples' minds that "This is what [X class] is, because that's how it's been presented in every picture of [X class]," when in reality, that class can be so much more.

And reading a hundred words, to get the feel of a class? The horror! I mean, imagine how much effort that takes. Not that the concept of a battlefront leader is pretty iconic, or anything, so no one will know what a Warlord is until they read the description, and who knows how long that could take. It could be whole minutes.

I agree with Avric. Images set a tone. They do not need to distinguish classes. I do not know why Jester does not get this distinction.

From my image search two WFRPG classes the noble and the champion/veteran, I feel these highlit the differences very well.

The two classes that share a similar concept is the bard and warlord. Where the bard inspires the entire group to boost their morale, and confidence in skills, the warlord treats the entire group as a weapon, where tactical advantage is offered to combat to create openings, or shoring up defenses in a moments notice to hold the line.

However, to complete the concept you can not approach it from any single aspect, as it is easy to tear down any class using that method. Each class must be treated as an entire package, and mechancis is one portion. Art is the last thing to be considered to provide a visual cue.

Oct 7, 2012 -- 9:13PM, Avric_Tholomyes wrote:

Oct 7, 2012 -- 8:49PM, The_Jester wrote:

Art is huge. Art is important.  Being able to identify a class or a race in a single image cannot be understated. Look what you just wrote to describe a class. There's a good hundred words or more. But if the class is established right, if the foundation is solid, a single image should be able to capture and convey all those words, but do so in a glance and in a fraction of the time.

I have to join in the chorus of disagreeing voices. Art is important, I'll grant you, but why is identifying a class by art important. Art should establish tone. In a horror suplement for example, there should be pictures of parties traveling through foggy woods, or dank, dark tunnels, with only the dim light of a torch. There shouldn't be scenes of combat or anything like that, because horror is based on the unknown. However, in a high fantasy setting, there should be more scenes of high-magic, epic combats. Not as over the top as 4e, I'll grant you. Hell, I'll even grant you that monsters should be depicted and differentiated in their art, to give the players an idea of what they're fighting. So yes, art is important.

But why should class need to be something you can see? Monsters need clear descriptive art, since that provides the players a mental image of what they're fighting. But players get to decide how their characters behave and act and look. There won't be a single appearance of what a fighter looks like, or a cleric, or a sorcerer, or a wizard, or any of that. And their appearances will often overlap, because, guess what? You can't tell everything by looking at something. It's the whole, "can't judge a book by it's cover" thing. A paladin won't look much different than a Cleric who wears heavy armor.

Yes, it very much is "don't judge a book by it's cover" because people judge books by their covers. If it was something people didn't do we wouldn't need an adage reminding them not to. Ask anyone who works in a book store or any librarian (yo), people look at the cover and decide if they want a book based on that with the blurb on the back occassionally acting like the swing vote. Packaging is hugely important and publishers spent tonnes of money on book covers because... people judge books by covers.

Oct 7, 2012 -- 9:13PM, Avric_Tholomyes wrote:

But I suppose the only way that your theory works is if we make all the art in the books pictures of the stereotypical rogue and the stereotypical fighter, etc. I don't know about you, but I'd like the art to represent the broadness of characters, not the stereotypical looks of each of the characters. It's the reason I tend not to like iconics, because it gets the thought into peoples' minds that "This is what [X class] is, because that's how it's been presented in every picture of [X class]," when in reality, that class can be so much more.

Iconic characters are a whole different kettle of fish. Personally I like them for the potential narrative and sense of relationships they can bring to each book. And I know Paizo loves them for the ease of art orders: instead of having to spend a page describing what a ranger is, what it looks like, what weapons it uses, etc, they can just go to the iconic ranger and tell the artist "draw this guy doing X".

Interestingly, you comment on the broadness of characters. But is the warlord broad? In many ways all of them have the same personality: they're the leader. It's built into the class. It's as narrowing to personality and character concept as the lawful good paladin, which many people don't like. 

Oct 7, 2012 -- 9:13PM, Avric_Tholomyes wrote:

And reading a hundred words, to get the feel of a class? The horror! I mean, imagine how much effort that takes. Not that the concept of a battlefront leader is pretty iconic, or anything, so no one will know what a Warlord is until they read the description, and who knows how long that could take. It could be whole minutes.

Yes. Minutes. But the warlord isn't the only class in the book. If we're adding the warlord to the "core" there could easily be a dozen classes in said book with the warlord right by the end, the alphabet being what it is (last or second last depending on where the Big Four are published).
When someone flips though the book looking at classes, the art is what will draw them to a class and make them want to read it out of order. 
So the warlord needs to be eyecatching and evocative enough that it paints a picture that will draw someone in. Someone will look at it and say "that's the type of character I want to play, I'll read it first". Otherwise they'll get to the warlord after reading all the other classes, when those "whole minutes" have become "and hour" or longer if multiple sittings were involved.  
If the warlord looks like a fighter people who like fighters will look at it and think "is this what they call the fighter/warrior in this game?" Or people who like martial characters or support leaders wont make it to "W" stopping at "B" for "bard" or "F" for "fighter". They'll reach the warlord already having a character concept in mind. 

And is the battlefield leader "iconic"?
D&D is pretty much the only RPG I can think of with a warlord style class. Few players are going to walk into D&D blind to the tropes and conventions of fantasy RPGs anymore, and are going to know what all the other classes are at a glance (possibly with some misconceptions). Except the warlord. Playing the warlord is like playing the off-screen commander running the military in a RTS game or a Pokemon trainer. There's no equivalent job in Final Fantasy or class Warcraft. I suppose you can describe it as a "pet class" with the rest of your party being your pets but... that's a dash insulting to the other players.

Oct 8, 2012 -- 4:56AM, wrecan wrote:

I agree with Avric. Images set a tone. They do not need to distinguish classes. I do not know why Jester does not get this distinction.

It's emblematic of the similarities between the fighter and warlord. What they do is different, how they actually engage combat encounters on a round-by-round basis is different. But that's one part of the package.
The fighter and warlord overlap in what they are. They're martial classes. They use weapons and heavier armours. They fight in melee. They don't cast spells. They rely on training and strength to adventure. 
When they updated rangers from 1e to 2e, they dumped their heavier armour proficiency and added two-weapon fighting. Why? To make them more unique and give them something non-fighterish. Two-weapon fighting is a very descriptive element. It's visual without illustrations. 
I brought up art pretty much because of my art challenge, as it was easier than asking people for "visuals", which would have been nothing but references to "keen tactics" and "inspirating personality" and "natural leadership" that invariably end up being some dude pointing at the monster. 


I do have a question for warlord fans who have a little more first hand experience with playing a warlord.
Would a warlord be as satisfying an experience in the current interation of 5e? Is a warlord as effective in a Theatre of the Mind style game?

Jester, by your logic we should only have one mundane class. Rogues overlap with Fighters far more the Warlords do. As do Rangers,  Barbarians, etc. Similarly, we shouldn't have both Paladins and Clerics, Paladins are just watered down Clerics who trade out the best parts of spellcasting for some watered down special abilities and a stringent code of conduct. By your view, we should have only one class of each power source, and each class should have different weapons or armor. The fact that you compare to Final Fantasy and Warcraft is particularly telling. In Final Fantasy, each character has their own distinctive look, which in most games is independent of their gear. In Warcraft, the developers provide armor sets that are separate for each class to craft the specific look you are talking about. And in both the characters generally have a very narrow range of weapons they use. If that is your basis for an RPG, I can see how "Both of these characters can use weapon X and Armor Y" can make you think that it's the same class.

But the rest of us play D&D. Where you can have a Fighter in light armor with a rapier and/or dagger. Where you can have a Rogue with a greatsword. Where you can have a Ranger who couldn't shoot a bow to save his life. Yes, iconics have certain things, but characters are defined by the choices the players make. Class does not determine the asthetic for all characters of that class. You can have iconics, but those iconics will have overlap with a great many characters of other classes, or even other iconics! 

Even ignoring all of this, you can change what type of armor the Warlord has access to to give it a more fitting image, if you are absolutely desperate to. I don't think many people would be offended by restricting the Warlord from heavy Armor, letting him have his pick of Light or Medium armors. Given there's no core class that really leans heavily on medium armors, the Warlord in Scale Mail or a Breastplate as opposed to the Fighter in Full Plate is a visually defining image. Weapons I think you're just going to have to suck it up on though, because restricting the Fighter's weapon proficiencies isn't something that's going to happen, and as long as the Fighter can use any weapon, then whatever weapons the Warlord is using doesn't matter.

1. Respond to the images we have sent you Jester.

2. The battlefield leader is not iconic in RPGs because it was never competently included in DnD prior to 4e, the early attempts to have fighters graduate to warlord with level were utterly lame, and made lamer by the limits of the edition. DnD really is genre defining for both class based and fantasy rpgs so if they didn't have one to rip off no one else had one.

There have been numerous attempts over the years, especially in pathfinder and the end days of 3e to create battlefield leader type classes, but the 4e warlord is so far the first one that can really claim to have done it right, and none of the ones since can claim any level of superiority compared to the warlord.

3. I don't honestly see how this oh so vaunted TotM is all that different with the exception that people have more chances of loosing track of stuff. The warlord would need some adjustments of course since the idea of a granted action would need to be explained in his text or added to the current ruleset, but should find itself equally adept in the current framework assuming they don't turn it back into something like the 3e marshal.

1)  Nothing about 5e dimishes the warlord.
2) Theater of the mind does slightly interfear, but no more so then the fighter's movement manuvers, or the rogue trying to hide.  It's still easy enough for a warlord to attack someone to let the wizard disengage, or give everyone a 5' movement at the start of battle.

The entire concept of a Leader role/class in 4E does support a mechanical aspected player, but it provides even more provocation of concepts to the theater of the mind. It forces the player to think outside of the box as an individual, and take the approach of sacrificing their owns interests as the best damage dealer, spell caster, or skill specialist, and apply these concepts to the group. And with the abundance of different leader classes in 4E, there is alot of design space to differentiate these type of abilities versus the standard classes.

The warlord would not have the same focus of the fighter, but provides a support role to the group to make the entire party more effective. The same could be stated about a 4E artificer that enhanced the weapons, armors, and other objects the party posseses, and even the shaman who uses the spirit companion to help the party and create situations they can take advantage of. So the question may be what is the best class to bring over the leader role to 5E, and the warlord is the best fit.

Oct 8, 2012 -- 8:15AM, The_Jester wrote:

I do have a question for warlord fans who have a little more first hand experience with playing a warlord.
Would a warlord be as satisfying an experience in the current interation of 5e? Is a warlord as effective in a Theatre of the Mind style game?

The 4e campaign I run has a mix of theater of the mind and using the grid. The last few session was a political intrigue and a scene modeled after a ball from pride and prejudice. There were man soldiers in attendance and the high stationed officers where best represented by the warlord. They where military men, but etiquette, historical knowledge, and a mind for politics are important when hobnobbing with nobility.  This is the role I see best filled by the warlord. I just see fighters having to spread themselves too thin to fill that niche, where it can easily be filled by as one option beneath the warlord umbrella.

Also, seeing a king threatened by a would be assassin shouting "Guards! To me!" and moving his men into position to defend him. Fits both tactically and theater of the mind. While he is not a warlord, the class as I see it function serves certain archetypes far better then would a fighter with a few leader options available.

Oct 8, 2012 -- 8:34AM, Seerow wrote:

Jester, by your logic we should only have one mundane class. Rogues overlap with Fighters far more the Warlords do. As do Rangers,  Barbarians, etc. Similarly, we shouldn't have both Paladins and Clerics, Paladins are just watered down Clerics who trade out the best parts of spellcasting for some watered down special abilities and a stringent code of conduct. By your view, we should have only one class of each power source, and each class should have different weapons or armor.

As I have said multiple times before, I don't think the paladin and ranger and barbarian are necassary. But they survive  and don't get cut since they've been in the game since the '70s. I don't see the need to add many new classes, and especially not if specialities and backgrounds can cover that load.

The Jester: Yes, it very much is "don't judge a book by it's cover" because people judge books by their covers.

You are still not understanding the distinction.  Art is important, but making sure every class is visually distinct is not important.  Art is important to immerse you in the milieu.  if the picture of the warlord make me want to play a warlord, then it works, even if you could look at the picture and imagine how to build a character as that image using the fighter class.

So please stop implying that people are saying art is unimportant.  Also please stop conflating a disagreement that classes must be visually distinct means people think art is unimportant.

The Jester: [But is the warlord broad? In many ways all of them have the same personality: they're the leader. It's built into the class. It's as narrowing to personality and character concept as the lawful good paladin, which many people don't like. 

It's not nearly as narrow as confining a class to a single alignment.  Rahter, it's as narrow as the rogue.  But there are hundreds of ways to distinguish the guys who sneaks around with short weapons, and there are hundreds of ways to distinguish the guy who makes his allies work together better as a team.

The Jester: there could easily be a dozen classes in said book

So?  I think we've all been assuming there will be more than a dozen classes in the final product: 1-assassin, 2-barbarian, 3-bard, 4-cleric, 5-druid, 6-fighter, 7-paladin, 8-psion, 9-ranger, 10-rogue, 11-sorcerer, 12-warlock, 13-warlord, and 14-wizard.  Are there any other classes of which you are aware any sizeable chunk of the D&D fanbase is clamoring to include?  (And I've already agreed that if there is a sizeable chunk who want artificer or Pathfinder's summoner, ti should be included.)  Because otherwise, this is more ivory tower thinking, albeit of the Chicken-Little variety.

The Jester: When someone flips though the book looking at classes, the art is what will draw them to a class and make them want to read it out of order. 

Which doesn't mean it needs to be impossible to look at a piece of artwork and say, "Sure, that's a warlord, but I can also build him as a fighter."  There isn't a single picture of a cleric that I couldn't build as a paladin (or vice versa).  There isn't a picture of a ranger I couldn't build as a fighter.  There isn't a picture of a sorcerer or warlock I couldn't envision as a wizard.

The picture doesn't have to exclude other classes.  It just has to entice you to takea closer look at this class.

The Jester: And is the battlefield leader "iconic"? D&D is pretty much the only RPG I can think of with a warlord style class.

Yes, it's as iconic as any of the other classes outside the "big four".  Other games try to force the warlord peg into the square hole of the fighter and I haven't seen anybody manage it well.  Warlord manages it very well.

The Jester: When they updated rangers from 1e to 2e, they dumped their heavier armour proficiency and added two-weapon fighting. Why? To make them more unique and give them something non-fighterish.

But not anything visually distinct.  A 2e ranger can be built quite easily as a 2e fighter, but for the spellcasting.  The spellcasting makes rangers different from fighters.  Fighters in 2e can two-weapon fight as well as any ranger.  Fighters in 2e can work just fine in medium armor.  

The Jester: I brought up art pretty much because of my art challenge, as it was easier than asking people for "visuals"

Your art challenge was a weak cop-out that completely misunderstands the purpose of art in a rulebook.  It was, and continues to be, an obvious attempt to not have to deal with the substantive responses of so many people as to why the warlord and fighter tell different stories.

You latched onto something completely meaningless -- the fact that fighters and walords have the same armor and weapon proficiencies -- and went to town on it to support your preconceived conclusion.  You're not listenign to what people say.  Instead, you keep repeating the same "challenge" to people even after it's been explained to you many times why your "challenge" is a rigged and meaningless carnival sideshow.

The Jester: Would a warlord be as satisfying an experience in the current interation of 5e? Is a warlord as effective in a Theatre of the Mind style game?

Yes and yes.  I have no idea whay you think otherwise, so I have no idea how to respond with more detail.  I wll just add I have run and played warlords in 4e using my SARn-FU system, which turns 4e into a TotM style game.  They work great and I have no problem envisioning a warlord who works equally well under the current iteration of the playtest rules.

Oct 8, 2012 -- 9:04AM, The_Jester wrote:

As I have said multiple times before, I don't think the paladin and ranger and barbarian are necassary. But they survive  and don't get cut since they've been in the game since the '70s.

They get a pass on that basis because there are sufficient numbers of fans who want to see ranger, barbarian, and paladin as a distinct class.  It doesn't matter that they are old.  It matters that they are suficiently popular and fill a niche.

As you mentioned, the thief-acrobat and cavalier are classes just as old as the barbarian.  All three were introduced int he 1e Unearthed Arcana.  Yet nobody is even pretending that thief-acrobat and cavalier should be included as classes.  Why?  Because virtually nobody cares about those classes.  It's not the age -- it's the demand.

So if you concede that demand warrants inclusion (as much as you appear to detest the notion that Wizards may actually design a game for their customers), then warlord warrants inclusion too.  Not because it's old, but because it's desired. 

Oct 8, 2012 -- 9:09AM, wrecan wrote:

The Jester: Yes, it very much is "don't judge a book by it's cover" because people judge books by their covers.

You are still not understanding the distinction.  Art is important, but making sure every class is visually distinct is not important.  Art is important to immerse you in the milieu.  if the picture of the warlord make me want to play a warlord, then it works, even if you could look at the picture and imagine how to build a character as that image using the fighter class.

So please stop implying that people are saying art is unimportant.  Also please stop conflating a disagreement that classes must be visually distinct means people think art is unimportant.

I think it is important. I believe classes should have some visual iconography and cues predominant and common to them. They may not always be unique, but certain combinations of imges should suggest one class or another. I'm sure there are people who would agree with me. Yes, the half-dozen people arguing with me in this thread disagree but I'm uncertain if this is representational or not.  

I don't understand where people get the idea that warlord has the same armor and weapon profs as the fighter.

If you check the phb you'll note that the warlord has fewer armor profs than the fighter.

NExt up jester people might take your art challenge more seriously if you actually responded to the pictures people have already sent in. I make no promises because your debate strategies thus far have been pretty lame, but it probably wouldn't hurt. 

Oct 8, 2012 -- 9:15AM, wrecan wrote:

Oct 8, 2012 -- 9:04AM, The_Jester wrote:

As I have said multiple times before, I don't think the paladin and ranger and barbarian are necassary. But they survive  and don't get cut since they've been in the game since the '70s.

They get a pass on that basis because there are sufficient numbers of fans who want to see ranger, barbarian, and paladin as a distinct class.  It doesn't matter that they are old.  It matters that they are suficiently popular and fill a niche.

As you mentioned, the thief-acrobat and cavalier are classes just as old as the barbarian.  All three were introduced int he 1e Unearthed Arcana.  Yet nobody is even pretending that thief-acrobat and cavalier should be included as classes.  Why?  Because virtually nobody cares about those classes.  It's not the age -- it's the demand.

So if you concede that demand warrants inclusion (as much as you appear to detest the notion that Wizards may actually design a game for their customers), then warlord warrants inclusion too.  Not because it's old, but because it's desired. 

You're right, I neglected the additional element of repeated inclusion. Age and their appearances in multiple editions mean those classes get a pass and a held to a different standard than whatever the current class de jour is. 

Personally, I'd also love to see the sorcerer go away. It's unnecessary with alternate spellcasting systems and its return in 4e was really due to WotC not wanting to have a controller wizard and a striker wizard. Class bloat weakens the game and waters down the classes. 

Oct 8, 2012 -- 9:33AM, rampant wrote:

up jester people might take your art challenge more seriously if you actually responded to the pictures people have already sent in. I make no promises because your debate strategies thus far have been pretty lame, but it probably wouldn't hurt. 

I'm on my iPad typing while watching my son. And my iPad hates the WotC forums, not letting me adequately cut-and-paste or format. I'm not in a position to really copy and comment on images at the moment. It's on my to do list for nap time.

Sorc doesn't seem very striker wizard to me. 

Oct 8, 2012 -- 9:42AM, rampant wrote:

Sorc doesn't seem very striker wizard to me. 

The NEXT sorceror is less distinct in that regards.

wrecan: So please stop implying that people are saying art is unimportant.  Also please stop conflating a disagreement that classes must be visually distinct means people think art is unimportant.

The Jester: I think it is important.

We all think art is important!!!!

The Jester: I believe classes should have some visual iconography and cues predominant and common to them.

Fine, I disagree and you're clearly not going to give me a justifiecation beyond "I believe it to be true and imagine people exist who agree with me".  But a warlord can be given as distinctive an iconography as all the other classes you wish would go away but concede will not.  A warlord is an armored combatant (less armored than the fighter) who will be seen gesturing, speaking, or otherwise communcating with his allies.  That is visual iconography distinct to the warlord.  The bard doesn't speak to his allies -- he sings a song that grants boons -- and doesn't wear (much) armor.  The fighter doesn't speak to his allies.

The key to warlord iconography is communication.  It's as distinctive as the ranger holding two weapons or a bow (which fighters can do), or a sorcerer with visual manifestations of power (which wizards can do), or a paladin smiting an enemy while riding a horse (which a cleric can do).

The Jester: You're right, I neglected the additional element of repeated inclusion. Age and their appearances in multiple editions mean those classes get a pass and a held to a different standard than whatever the current class de jour is. 

No, that's the symptom, not the reason.  The reason barbarian got repeated inclusion when the thief-acrobat did not was because of popularity.  

At any rate, you're wrong.  The barbarian appeared as a fighter kit and didn't get the class treatment in 2e until 1995, two years before the edition shut downm and six years into the edition.  The thief-acrobat was presented in 2e in 1989, six years before the barbarian, but was downgraded to prestige class in 3e.  The cavalier appeared alongside the barbarian in 2e and was a prestige class in 3e.  (Much like the assassin, which also may be getting the class treatment.)

If repetition were key, the thief-acrobat and cavalier would both be candidates for inclusion.  But they are not, not because they lack history or repetition, but because they lack popularity.  The things you are citing are merely proxies for the actual important factor: a popularity among a sufficiently large minority of players.

And let me mention something else.  The factors you have invented for inclusion -- age and repetition -- are excuses for edition warring.  Much like your arbitrary "art challenge" it's something you know ahead of time the 4e warlord cannot meet.  It's a rigged contest designed to justiofy your conclusions, no different than if you were to say "No class with 'lord' in the name has ever been used as a class before 4e.  So show me that 'warlord' doesn't have 'lord' in the name and I'll reconsider whether it should be a class."

The Jester: Class bloat weakens the game and waters down the classes. 

Class bloat weakened the game in 3e because they had over 60 classes by its end.  But they started with 8 and nobody complained about the inclusion of six more psionic classes.  So I don't think bloat is a problem when you have 14 classes.

Oct 8, 2012 -- 9:57AM, Garthanos wrote:

Oct 8, 2012 -- 9:42AM, rampant wrote:

Sorc doesn't seem very striker wizard to me. 

The NEXT sorceror is less distinct in that regards.

The Next sorcerer is very much struggling to find its niche when the wizard's spell system is modular and their are not defined combat roles for artificial distinction. 

The class bloat problems in 3e were also influenced by the poor construction of many classes and the wildly divergent power levels, not to mention how some classes were incredibly narrow and others impossibly broad.

Oct 8, 2012 -- 10:06AM, wrecan wrote:

The key to warlord iconography is communication.  It's as distinctive as the ranger holding two weapons or a bow (which fighters can do), or a sorcerer with visual manifestations of power (which wizards can do), or a paladin smiting an enemy while riding a horse (which a cleric can do).

That's a fair point. 

Oct 8, 2012 -- 10:06AM, wrecan wrote:

The Jester: You're right, I neglected the additional element of repeated inclusion. Age and their appearances in multiple editions mean those classes get a pass and a held to a different standard than whatever the current class de jour is. 

No, that's the symptom, not the reason.  The reason barbarian got repeated inclusion when the thief-acrobat did not was because of popularity.  

At any rate, you're wrong.  The barbarian appeared as a fighter kit and didn't get the class treatment in 2e until 1995, two years before the edition shut downm and six years into the edition.  The thief-acrobat was presented in 2e in 1989, six years before the barbarian, but was downgraded to prestige class in 3e.  The cavalier appeared alongside the barbarian in 2e and was a prestige class in 3e.  (Much like the assassin, which also may be getting the class treatment.)

If repetition were key, the thief-acrobat and cavalier would both be candidates for inclusion.  But they are not, not because they lack history or repetition, but because they lack popularity.  The things you are citing are merely proxies for the actual important factor: a popularity among a sufficiently large minority of players.

And let me mention something else.  The factors you have invented for inclusion -- age and repetition -- are excuses for edition warring.  Much like your arbitrary "art challenge" it's something you know ahead of time the 4e warlord cannot meet.  It's a rigged contest designed to justiofy your conclusions, no different than if you were to say "No class with 'lord' in the name has ever been used as a class before 4e.  So show me that 'warlord' doesn't have 'lord' in the name and I'll reconsider whether it should be a class."

The Jester: Class bloat weakens the game and waters down the classes. 

Class bloat weakened the game in 3e because they had over 60 classes by its end.  But they started with 8 and nobody complained about the inclusion of six more psionic classes.  So I don't think bloat is a problem when you have 14 classes.

I just dislike the idea of allowing content based on a popularity contest when there are other ways of representing that content which might work just as well. A berzerker fighting style or leader speciality - if designed right - could be just as good as a seperate class but with added flexibility. I don't know why the onus of a character's defining feature has to be their class.
Right now, other extremely popular 4e classes have been reported as the avenger and vampire. I don't feel either is entirely deserving of being a class. This thread has done a pretty good job of swaying me to the "warlord should be a class" camp, although I still feel it needs more distinction (which was why I tried to segue the conversation in that direction), but I still don't like the idea of loud vocal minorities dictating what should and should not be a class. 

Oct 8, 2012 -- 10:37AM, The_Jester wrote:

Oct 8, 2012 -- 10:06AM, wrecan wrote:

The key to warlord iconography is communication.  It's as distinctive as the ranger holding two weapons or a bow (which fighters can do), or a sorcerer with visual manifestations of power (which wizards can do), or a paladin smiting an enemy while riding a horse (which a cleric can do).

That's a fair point.

Thank you.  Are we now done with the "visual representation" demand?

The Jester: I just dislike the idea of allowing content based on a popularity contest when there are other ways of representing that content which might work just as well.

Nothing can work as well as popularity because the whole point of a business is to sell product, which means your product has to appeal to people and "appealability" is just another way of describing "popularity".  All the other factors you might imagine are simply ways to try to get to "popular".  Why do we want "balance"?  Because playing in a fair game is popular.  Why do we want "verisiilitude"?  Because playing in an immersive game is "popular".

The Jester: A berzerker fighting style or leader speciality - if designed right - could be just as good as a seperate class but with added flexibility.

Define "as good".  How do you measure "good"?  To Wizards, I imagine, fundamentally, "good" means people will like it and be more likely to be a book with it in it.  And that's just another way of saying "It'll be popular."

The Jester: Right now, other extremely popular 4e classes have been reported as the avenger and vampire.

Has anybody been clamoring for the avenger and vampire to be included as classes?  I don't know of anybody.  I've seen people say the'd like to see Vampire as a background, or a race or a race-background combo, or a specialty.  I've seen people propose the avenger as a paladin build (and not so many that I think Wizards needs to take them seriously).  I've seen no realy clamor for either of these to be included as a class.

The Jester: This thread has done a pretty good job of swaying me to the "warlord should be a class" camp.

Yay!  Our work here is done!!  

The Jester:  I still don't like the idea of loud vocal minorities dictating what should and should not be a class.

They dont' get to dictate what should not be a class, unless there's a sizeable group out there who claims they would refuse to buy the game if it includes a class.  (I know of no such sizeable minority.)  The passionate minority can only dictate what should be a class because Wizards is in the business of selling stuff to passionate fans.

Oct 8, 2012 -- 10:48AM, wrecan wrote:

Has anybody been clamoring for the avenger and vampire to be included as classes?  I don't know of anybody.  I've seen people say the'd like to see Vampire as a background, or a race or a race-background combo, or a specialty.  I've seen people propose the avenger as a paladin build (and not so many that I think Wizards needs to take them seriously).  I've seen no realy clamor for either of these to be included as a class.

Every time I've said the avenger was a rogue/cleric multiclass or paladin striker build I've been hit with comments or response defending the avenger. Until this thread, I saw more pro-avengers than pro-warlords. When I wrote my brief post in "What classes does D&D Next need"  community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...  I specifically went with warlord over avenger as an example because I didn't want to start a fight. 

Oct 8, 2012 -- 10:48AM, wrecan wrote:

The Jester: This thread has done a pretty good job of swaying me to the "warlord should be a class" camp.

Yay!  Our work here is done!!  

Your work was done two pages back, but everyone was too busy arguing to notice.

Oct 8, 2012 -- 11:00AM, The_Jester wrote:

Until this thread, I saw more pro-avengers than pro-warlords. When I wrote my brief post in "What classes does D&D Next need"  community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...  I specifically went with warlord over avenger as an example because I didn't want to start a fight.

You did notice that in that thread nobody suggested avenger or vampire should be a class, right?  I did a quick search for avenger in this forum and could only find one person asking for it to be a class.  Here, Xun (who doesn't want an avenger class) suggested an avenger be the non-LG paladin, and nobody even wanted that!  Here, someone suggests Avenger as a paladin option and nobody says they want it as its own class.  Okay, Garthanos asks for it here, along with swordmage, but nobody else.  So rest easy.  Virtually nobody is looking for an avenger class.

First off, the Warlord is a PH1 class, so should be 'in' as a core class.  It's also the only new-with-4e class to have that distinction, so it's exclusion or demotion would be a clear message to 4e fans that their patronage is no longer wanted (not that said message isn't already being sent loud and clear with the premature announcement of 5e and end of 4e products).

The Warlord is a litmus test for 5e's supposed commitment to being D&D for /everyone/.  It's exclusion or demotion gives the lie to the story of 'inclusion.'

Sep 28, 2012 -- 9:38PM, QuestorTelloc wrote:

What is a warlord? What makes it unique? Stripping the 4E Warlord of all aspects in common with a fighter, rogue, or any other martial class, and you get the voice.... From that point of view, ANY class can serve that function. 

Strip a Wizard of everything in common with the Bard, Sorcerer, and Warlock, and you have the ability to swap out abilities with a extend rest.  From that point of view, any class might have such a feature.  Strip the Cleric of everything in common with the Druid and Paladin, and you have, well, /nothing/ (the Paladin turns undead and wears heavy armor, the Druid casts spells).  

Your premise is nonsense.

The Warlord is a martial leader, a warrior who leads from the front, inspiring and coordinating his allies or followers.  Perhaps by shouting at them in the heat of battle (or other forms of signals, or his mere, heroic presence), perhaps by drilling them to perfection before hand.

Would a specialty work for everything Warlords need to do?

No.  Absolutely, categorically, no.

The verbal aspect, I think, kills Warlord as a class. If you are for any reason struck mute or ensconced in Silence (for example, by a spell), you are an unnecessarily verbose fighter, and that's it.

Don't spellcasters need to speak?  Have you just declared them all dead as a class?  

This 'verbal aspect' is something you've made up.  Very few warlord abilities actually require the warlord speak or an ally hear them.  Others require they merely have line of sight, for instance, implying inspiration by example or non-verbal signals, and most use normal targeting rules with no further requirements.  

Oct 8, 2012 -- 11:37AM, wrecan wrote:

Here, someone suggests Avenger as a paladin option and nobody says they want it as its own class.  Okay, Garthanos asks for it here, along with swordmage, but nobody else.  So rest easy.  Virtually nobody is looking for an avenger class.

AND If the Paladin and Cleric were flexible in Armor such that we can have the Unarmored version of both protected by faith..  I think I would be happier with both.

As requested by rampant let's look at the warlord art submitted.

Oct 7, 2012 -- 9:40AM, mellored wrote:

Pictures...
Fighter with armor and his weapon:
www.maximumtrainingsolutions.com/image-f...
Warlord with his weapons and a magic helm:
multimedia.heraldinteractive.com/images/...

See a difference?

Okay, my first thought when I saw this was "so, warlords are typically retired fighters who can't fight anymore?"
Not being big into organized sports this just didn't wow me. I've never seen the coach as particularly important. A glorified cheerleader. I can see them as important off the field teaching the skills, group trainers as it were, but never saw it as hugely important to winning games. But this is someone who hates physical team sports talking directly out of his ass.

Oct 7, 2012 -- 3:52PM, rampant wrote:

ok then what about this guy?
is that enough of a visual for you?
browse.deviantart.com/?qh=%C2%A7ion=&glo...

This really struck me as a good image of a "warlord" in a non D&D context. What people not familiar with the class would think of when they hear the term. Does anyone remember the fuss over the name in the early days of 4e?
He's not inspiring. Warlords don't strike me as the two-weapon sort. He's more a barbarian who knows how to lead (read: berzererk style fighter with the leader speciality). There's no implication of charisma or intelligence there. But he's leading an army and doesn't look like the "general" type, so I get where you're coming from. It's not an image I disagree with.

Oct 8, 2012 -- 5:29AM, Bronze_Hero wrote:

From my image search two WFRPG classes the noble www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffg_content/w...
and the champion/veteran
2.bp.blogspot.com/_ts1HdLGjywM/TK41RqvHb...
I feel these highlit the differences very well.

Is this meant to highlight the difference between the warlord and the fighter?
I guess playing the warlord as the "fop" is a different angle. There is the implications of arrogance. I don't see many people leaping to the commands of the "fop" archetype the same way they do to the warlord.

I've also been looking for my own art in a desire to help pin down what a warlord should look like. Amusingly, this was one of the first pieces:
hangemhigh13.deviantart.com/art/DnD-4e-P...
At first I thought the warlord was on the far right, as I'm used to warlords either having polearms or shields and he had a shield. But oh, the other one is pointing! He's a warlord, as he knows how to gesture.

Moving onto other art, this one really leapt out at me. Given the artist it was very likely drawn with the D&D warlord in mind.
cwgabriel.deviantart.com/art/Warlord-107...
He's a martial character and actually wearing more armour than most warlords, but the image still captures the warlord essence very well. He's not fighting, and not acting. He's decorated, but is clearly not a paladin. He's stationary yet watching and thinking are conveyed very nicely.
Plus, ya'know, polearm and flag.

When I saw this, something else struck me:
mindflenzing.deviantart.com/art/Marjolei...
This figure could also be a fighter (although reading the description reveals she's a paladin/bard hybrid). But with this figure I noticed the lack of helm. This is typical of females in heavy armour but there's something very warlordy about being helmless. Fighters and paladins need protective headgear for their job, but warlords depend on being able to see the battlefield and rely on all their senses. A helm would get in the way.

Two-weapon style is available to anyone in 5e, I could play a dual wielding cleric had I the inclination. 

Anyway not all warlords inspire the same way, Intimidation is there for a reason.

He's probably and evil warlord with those horns. 

Heh, My favorite Warlord currently looks like and is a Whip wielding Drow former battle slave mistress.

Oct 8, 2012 -- 12:04PM, The_Jester wrote:

As requested by rampant let's look at the warlord art submitted.

Oct 7, 2012 -- 9:40AM, mellored wrote:

Pictures...
Fighter with armor and his weapon:
www.maximumtrainingsolutions.com/image-f...
Warlord with his weapons and a magic helm:
multimedia.heraldinteractive.com/images/...

See a difference?

Okay, my first thought when I saw this was "so, warlords are typically retired fighters who can't fight anymore?"
Not being big into organized sports this just didn't wow me. I've never seen the coach as particularly important. A glorified cheerleader. I can see them as important off the field teaching the skills, group trainers as it were, but never saw it as hugely important to winning games. But this is someone who hates physical team sports talking directly out of his ass.

Warlords have a good bit of chearleader in them.  Paticularly the inpserational ones.  But there's also the tactical part.  Sure, they take time to train the party to work together (and if they could tie that in some sort of mechanical way, that would be awsome), but they abolutely need to make adjustments and calls on the fly.  If a player is injured, they decide who goes out next.  Surrounding a cyclopse might be a great tactic, but that doesn't work so well against a beholder.

Most pictures of them would be of them shouting and/or pointing.  Not fighting.

Spoiler: Show

I could imagine one with a "playbook" impliment
Spoiler: Show  

The Jester: Not being big into organized sports this just didn't wow me.

I think if you are anti-team sports and have never been in the military, you may have trouble connecting with the warlord, as there are few other analogies to what the warlord does.  Have you ever been in an organization with a manager who was really good?  People like too complain about bosses, but a really good one accomplishes amazing things.  Things the team wouldn't have accomplished without them.  

As I said, prior to 4e, the closest i ever came to successfully playing a warlord type (after many failed attempts) was a Syndicate caster in a Mage: the Ascension game in the 1990's who specialized in Rotes that synergized the abilities of mages with diverse paradigms.  (If you never played the game, this probably sounds like gobbledygook.)

"The team is greater than the sum of its parts" is a mantra for the warlord.  And for good reason.

The Jester: I've never seen the coach as particularly important. A glorified cheerleader. I can see them as important off the field teaching the skills, group trainers as it were, but never saw it as hugely important to winning games. But this is someone who hates physical team sports talking directly out of his ass.

I think that may be the crux of your issues with the class.

Oct 8, 2012 -- 8:15AM, The_Jester wrote:

[
D&D is pretty much the only RPG I can think of with a warlord style class. Few players are going to walk into D&D blind to the tropes and conventions of fantasy RPGs anymore, and are going to know what all the other classes are at a glance (possibly with some misconceptions). Except the warlord. Playing the warlord is like playing the off-screen commander running the military in a RTS game or a Pokemon trainer. There's no equivalent job in Final Fantasy or class Warcraft. I suppose you can describe it as a "pet class" with the rest of your party being your pets but... that's a dash insulting to the other players.

 

Whooa, you talked about my specialty. If they include this concept in such a Final Fantasy with that system, it should be separate. Actually, both in Final Fantasy X-2 as in Final Fantasy XIII, there is a something that is similar. Actually, with recent abilities, build a Final Fantasy warlord isn’t hard.

Oct 8, 2012 -- 8:34AM, Seerow wrote:

Jester, by your logic we should only have one mundane class. Rogues overlap with Fighters far more the Warlords do. As do Rangers,  Barbarians, etc. Similarly, we shouldn't have both Paladins and Clerics, Paladins are just watered down Clerics who trade out the best parts of spellcasting for some watered down special abilities and a stringent code of conduct. By your view, we should have only one class of each power source, and each class should have different weapons or armor. The fact that you compare to Final Fantasy and Warcraft is particularly telling. In Final Fantasy, each character has their own distinctive look, which in most games is independent of their gear. In Warcraft, the developers provide armor sets that are separate for each class to craft the specific look you are talking about. And in both the characters generally have a very narrow range of weapons they use. If that is your basis for an RPG, I can see how "Both of these characters can use weapon X and Armor Y" can make you think that it's the same class.

Whooa, in Final Fantasy, despite some differences in equipment, there is more than that. Much more.

Oct 8, 2012 -- 11:48AM, Tony_Vargas wrote:

First off, the Warlord is a PH1 class, so should be 'in' as a core class.  It's also the only new-with-4e class to have that distinction, so it's exclusion or demotion would be a clear message to 4e fans that their patronage is no longer wanted (not that said message isn't already being sent loud and clear with the premature announcement of 5e and end of 4e products).

The Warlord is a litmus test for 5e's supposed commitment to being D&D for /everyone/.  It's exclusion or demotion gives the lie to the story of 'inclusion.'

I don't know about all that, now. If there is no truly unique and compelling way for the warlord to be defined and implemented within the confines of this edition's mechanical design space, then I'd much prefer he be omitted as opposed to being shoehorned in as a mere olive branch gesture. 

Oct 8, 2012 -- 3:32PM, mrpopstar wrote:

  If there is no truly unique and compelling way for the warlord to be defined and implemented within the confines of this edition's mechanical design space, then I'd much prefer he be omitted as opposed to being shoehorned in as a mere olive branch gesture. 

If there is no truly unique and compelling way for the warlord to be defined and implemented within the confines of this edition's mechanical design space, then the edition sucks....  

I agee with both of you.

Technically I trust Mearles better than that... 

Oct 8, 2012 -- 1:01PM, wrecan wrote:

As I said, prior to 4e, the closest i ever came to successfully playing a warlord type (after many failed attempts) was a Syndicate caster in a Mage: the Ascension game in the 1990's who specialized in Rotes that synergized the abilities of mages with diverse paradigms.  (If you never played the game, this probably sounds like gobbledygook.)

"The team is greater than the sum of its parts" is a mantra for the warlord.  And for good reason.

Yeah, that sounds like gobbledygook.  

I found myself effectively trying to play a warlord back in the day.  One of my fighters had miraculously not died for 9 consecutive levels and built a stronghold.  It turned out to be nothing but a money pit, and bringing his little band of followers into any of our battles just got them killed.  It was very dissapointing.  The 4e Warlord doesn't deliver on the kind of battlefield tactics that I'd like to see, but it's fun for the small-unit heroic stuff the game does cover.  It would be a shame if D&D:Next couldn't deliver a Warlord at least as good.  I'd really like to see one able to work well with larger battles.

Oct 8, 2012 -- 11:37AM, wrecan wrote:

Oct 8, 2012 -- 11:00AM, The_Jester wrote:

Until this thread, I saw more pro-avengers than pro-warlords. When I wrote my brief post in "What classes does D&D Next need"  community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...  I specifically went with warlord over avenger as an example because I didn't want to start a fight.

You did notice that in that thread nobody suggested avenger or vampire should be a class, right?  I did a quick search for avenger in this forum and could only find one person asking for it to be a class.  Here, Xun (who doesn't want an avenger class) suggested an avenger be the non-LG paladin, and nobody even wanted that!  Here, someone suggests Avenger as a paladin option and nobody says they want it as its own class.  Okay, Garthanos asks for it here, along with swordmage, but nobody else.  So rest easy.  Virtually nobody is looking for an avenger class.

I've said at least a dozen times that it needs to be either a class or a type of assassin.

Oct 8, 2012 -- 12:39PM, mellored wrote:

Oct 8, 2012 -- 12:04PM, The_Jester wrote:

As requested by rampant let's look at the warlord art submitted.

Oct 7, 2012 -- 9:40AM, mellored wrote:

Pictures...
Fighter with armor and his weapon:
www.maximumtrainingsolutions.com/image-f...
Warlord with his weapons and a magic helm:
multimedia.heraldinteractive.com/images/...

See a difference?

Okay, my first thought when I saw this was "so, warlords are typically retired fighters who can't fight anymore?"
Not being big into organized sports this just didn't wow me. I've never seen the coach as particularly important. A glorified cheerleader. I can see them as important off the field teaching the skills, group trainers as it were, but never saw it as hugely important to winning games. But this is someone who hates physical team sports talking directly out of his ass.

Warlords have a good bit of chearleader in them.  Paticularly the inpserational ones.  But there's also the tactical part.  Sure, they take time to train the party to work together (and if they could tie that in some sort of mechanical way, that would be awsome), but they abolutely need to make adjustments and calls on the fly.  

Coaches also call tell the QB, Captain, whatever (depending on sport) what play to use next.


Anyway, what if the Warlord was able to, during periods of rest, put the whole group into a stance, basically. Every ally the Warlord talks to during a rest gets some sort of bonus, and the Warlord has a few different ones to choose from.

"I don't know about all that, now. If there is no truly unique and compelling way for the warlord to be defined and implemented within the confines of this edition's mechanical design space, then I'd much prefer he be omitted as opposed to being shoehorned in as a mere olive branch gesture. "

Could not disagree more. The warlords value as an olive branch far exceeds it's value as a character class. If we can't sacrifice two pages of space in the PHB to make 4E players feel like their opinions matter then we should be ashamed of ourselves.