|
8 months ago ::
Oct 06, 2012 - 2:40PM
#51
|
|
|
I'm going to make one more quick warlord post and then walk away, as this is a discussion better suited for another thread. Where does it say that warlords will use the combat expertise system? Why would it have the same abilities as a fighter? and why would it suddenly sprout the ability to use heavy armor? Warlords did have a couple of AP features but that was a thing in 4e everyone got them eventually.
In fact why couldn't Warlords use AP in 5e? Let's make that their mechanic, they have a pool of AP that they use to grant actions to other characters.
The problem with warlords isn't thinking of a unique mechanic to make their own. That's not hard. Making "Action Points" their hook is certainly one way, but it doesn't address the underlying warlord problem.
I thought this post had the Warlord quandry down cold:
The warlord contention boils down to a difference in gaming focus. -- People who don't think it has enough merit to stand on its own are those who view the game through the lens of a storyteller. People who think it has enough merit to stand on its own are those who view the game through the lens of a tactical wargamer.
Pay close attention to the underlying statement of what is submitted in their defense.
Every argument I have ever seen in favor of the warlord as 'different' refers to the class in terms of its mechanical function, numerical effect, or 4th-edition-ness. There is little precedence for the class in terms of lore, game history, story element, or anything meatier than 'he's a combat leader'.
I'm not against the warlord as a class. I'm merely presenting my observation. 
The warlord is a great example of a class that fits its edition. It's a very 4e class.
It's popular and has supporters, but so did many 3e classes that vanished and were never updated, or appeared in a very, very different format. Some had their mechanics stolen and added to base classes. Some became builds for base classes. And some became Paragon Paths. And some never appeared at all. All were lamented by their fans and supporters but the bulk of players quickly forgot once the new edition was released.
This is an issue now, as the content is not finalized, but once the 5e books are released, if there is no warlord life will go on. Maybe it will come out later, maybe it won't. People will find new options that appeal to them.
Not every class or race or path or build will be updated. There is always content that doesn't make the cut. That's just a fact of the game. It really depends on what the people making the classes think and what they think is cool. And, often, they'd just rather make-up something new than update an old idea.
And looking at the division in the fanbase between "warlord is a build" and "warlord is a class" camps, WotC might be better off saying "it's not ready" until people forget and just walking away and ignoring the warlord altogether rather than alienating half the audience.
Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: What Would Wrecan Say? Spoiler:
Show
My Webcomic
Updated Tuesday and Thursday
Read my blog on the WotC Community Site (updated irregularly to avoid spamming the "Featured Blogger" list).
You can follow me on Twitter: "@DnDJester"
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 06, 2012 - 2:47PM
#52
|
Date Joined:
Oct 26, 2004
|
I'm just saying that an officers rank had less to do with his military abilities back in the middle ages and more with his political inclinations and position as such the argument that warlords should be fighters because officers were grunts before the became officers is invalid in this instance.
I'm not saying Warlords should be represented by those nobles anymore than bards should be represented by {insert manufactured popstar here}.
Jester, I disagree, as I have stated there is tremendous support for the concept of a warlord in mythology and fiction, it's more than a difference between tactical gamers and what ever the other group is calling itself these days. It's a huge archetype that's been ignored for the most part through out much of DnD's history. As big a fan as I am of psionics warlord has more of a place in a fantasy rpg than they do, in fact he probably trumps out the armored Cleric and the fire-ball wizard in that respect.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 06, 2012 - 2:49PM
#53
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
D&D Next needs a class for every major approach to the adventuring lifestyle appropriate for its genre.
That is what a class is. An approach to the adventuring life. Whether it be by intense combat training, trickery and expertise, study of the arcane arts, faith and spellcraft associated to a deity, faith and grace from the divine, innate magical ability, being one with nature, understanding of the wilderness, dealing with stronger beings, emotional outbursts and raw physique, knowledge of many ways to kill, and usage of tactics and inspiration.
Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds.
Constitution Based Class for Next!
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 06, 2012 - 3:02PM
#54
|
Date Joined:
Sep 28, 2009
|
I'm just saying that an officers rank had less to do with his military abilities back in the middle ages and more with his political inclinations and position as such the argument that warlords should be fighters because officers were grunts before the became officers is invalid in this instance.
I resign my argument, of course a warlord doesn't necessarily have fighter levels just as a warlock does not necessarily have wizard levels. This I actually hinted at when you mentioned Lui Bei.
Lokiron, I disagree, as I have stated there is tremendous support for the concept of a warlord in mythology and fiction, it's more than a difference between tactical gamers and what ever the other group is calling itself these days. It's a huge archetype that's been ignored for the most part through out much of DnD's history. As big a fan as I am of psionics warlord has more of a place in a fantasy rpg than they do, in fact he probably trumps out the armored Cleric and the fire-ball wizard in that respect.
No, you don't disagree with me. You're stuck in a heated thread somewhere else and automatically think I don't want the warlord in 5E. Go back and check my list, you'll find it on there!
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 06, 2012 - 3:09PM
#55
|
Date Joined:
May 25, 2012
|
I object to the claim that the warlord if somehow accomplishing some groundbreaking new task. A broadly defined speed-fighter with charisma, who buffs other characters and performs weaker backup tank duty? Yeah, we used to call those "bards."
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 06, 2012 - 3:25PM
#56
|
Date Joined:
Sep 28, 2009
|
I object to the claim that the warlord if somehow accomplishing some groundbreaking new task. A broadly defined speed-fighter with charisma, who buffs other characters and performs weaker backup tank duty? Yeah, we used to call those "bards."
Except the bard wields magic.
So you don't want the warlord. What do you want?
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 06, 2012 - 3:28PM
#57
|
|
|
The warlord contention boils down to a difference in gaming focus. -- People who don't think it has enough merit to stand on its own are those who view the game through the lens of a storyteller. People who think it has enough merit to stand on its own are those who view the game through the lens of a tactical wargamer.
Pay close attention to the underlying statement of what is submitted in their defense.
Every argument I have ever seen in favor of the warlord as 'different' refers to the class in terms of its mechanical function, numerical effect, or 4th-edition-ness. There is little precedence for the class in terms of lore, game history, story element, or anything meatier than 'he's a combat leader'.
I'm not against the warlord as a class. I'm merely presenting my observation.
Bollox.
I'm a Storyteller, through and through.
In fact, it's the title I prefer when running games over and above the archaic and (I find) faintly insulting "Dungeon Master".
And I am 100% in support of the Warlord, for story reasons.
There is a clear differentiation, from a storytelling perspective, between a "Fighter" who rocks it out individually and makes their own champion moments for themselves and a "Leader" who aids, advises and assists others to produce and enhance their champion moments.
If we are cutting Warlord out of the game, which I think is a mistake from a purely marketing perspective given the direct and personal offence many 4th Edition players would take rightly or wrongly from such a decision, then the arguments for Paladin, Ranger or Barbarian become VERY thin indeed.
After all, Warlords do something utterly different from Fighters, they aid and assist others.
Paladins, Rangers and Barbarians on the other hand do EXACTLY THE SAME thing as a Fighter in mostly the same ways, with slight flavour variations. Divine, Rougish and Primal as the case may be.
Those three "iconic" classes suffer FAR MORE than the Warlord from overlap with one another AND with the Fighter core they all build on.
More to the topic at hand, I think we need to go one of two ways.
Either back to the TRUE core:
Fighter (incorporating Rogue)
Wizard
Cleric
And everything else covered through varying levels of multi-classing, Specialities and Backgrounds.
OR
Everything in a PHB1 from any edition.
Me, I'm in favour of the latter... especially for the "Edition to bring them all and in the darkness bind them".
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 06, 2012 - 3:29PM
#58
|
|
|
Fighter
Rogue
Wizard
Cleric
Paladin
Ranger
Bard
Druid
Barbarian
Monk
Sorcerer
Warlock
Warlord
All of these are different enough both in mechanics and flavor that can be own classes, and have a great amount of fans. I would like more classes of their own, but these ones are the most important. This make up for 13 core classes (or 13 classes that are in the core rulebooks).
Where's the gish? :-(
Indeed.
Add Swordmage to that list and you'd have something I could support.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 06, 2012 - 3:33PM
#59
|
Date Joined:
May 25, 2012
|
The differences between warlord and bard boil down to fluff and flavor. Between inspiring and assisting with magical songs or...what, hearty battlecries?... the bard makes more sense, story-wise.
Dump the redundant warlord.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 06, 2012 - 3:41PM
#60
|
|
|
The differences between warlord and bard boil down to fluff and flavor. Between inspiring and assisting with magical songs or...what, hearty battlecries?... the bard makes more sense, story-wise. Dump the redundant warlord.
That makes as much sense as "Fighters are just Wizards with swords, stop being dense and just re-image your spells as weapon attacks".
In other words, it makes no sense at all.
There is plenty of design and story space for Bardic Inspiration through magic and Military Leadership through tactical nous and insight as well as the charasmatic angle which everyone seems to push.
|
|
|
