Community

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 -- 10:48AM, 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.

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.