|
8 months ago ::
Nov 15, 2012 - 12:26PM
#61
|
Date Joined:
Apr 17, 2008
|
In some ways, I see both these classes as two sides of the same coin.
The most basic, primary purpose of both is to provide support and enhancement to others in the party through their actions.
Warlords are the more Martial/Fighter side of the coin where the Bard is more Arcane/Roguish.
Warlords utilize their tactical knowledge and battlefield prowess to direct and rally their party members.
Bards utilize their artistic talents and understanding of emotions to encourage and inspire their party members.
A Warlord's effect focus should be in allowing others within the party to do more....to attack more, to move more, to save more, etc. A Bards effect focus should be in allowing others within the party to do better...to hit more, to move farther, to save better, etc.
In many ways, I see their abilities to affect the enemy following a similar parth both in style and application.
With that said...while I see them as two very SIMILAR classes, I don't really see them as functioning in a way where one is the subset of another. IE I can't see it working where "Bard" is the class and "Warlord" is a subset. I think the methods in how they do things are far too different for that to work. The Warlord should be a far better combatant while the Bard should be far more skilled, and that's before you get into the core class abilities.
I think both need to be a seperate class IF you're doing seperate classes all across the bard.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Nov 15, 2012 - 2:24PM
#62
|
|
|
I get that many people hate designing for balance. At I get that many people like balance and require it. So, we can all pray to Buddha or Wotc and hope the other team is disappointed, or we can think about ways to make everyone happy. Wotc cracked it with cs dice, which was a compromise between those who liked simple vs complex fighters.
The way to deal with balance is to label builds, backgrounds, spells and all with a tag of "compatible with hard balance" and "incompatible". Design the compatible first, and then focus on adding incompatible. Note that I didn't say present first - I don't care which is the default, as long as both types of gamers can play. Under this model, the fighter and cleric are gimped for exploration and options to fix that needs to be addressed pronto. Even if you break balance later, give those who want it breadcrumbs to the balance solution.
Now for the op - if the assumption is that martial healing is both loved and hated, then we'll need to support both. Right now, the resting gives options, it's easy enough to make a note that says martial healing has similar options between being impossible, 50 % successful or 100% successful. Under that model, those who like warlords still get to keep their class safe from those who don't like it.
And maybe a section in the dmg that says "if you believe in only magical healing and your player wants to play a warlord, consider his happiness. A trivial workaround is o give the warlord a "horn of mending" - a wondering magic item that allows sufficiently wise characters to heal others through the power of their words. Since it is Attuned, no one else can use it. This item doesn't count against attunement limits.
Now the bard is studiously magical, and the warlord is inherently magical. Done!
I know it's a compromise and that most 4e warlords would pray to never have a dm who insisted on the horn. But would that whole compromise work?
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Nov 15, 2012 - 3:30PM
#63
|
Date Joined:
Sep 26, 2001
|
My suggestion is that they might share a "common base class/archtype". With that in mind there might be a way to clean up the design and make the classes more modular.
So, since Warlords and Bards both "Heal and improve morale," they could be grouped under this base-class/archetype? And, since Clerics /also/ do both those things, they could go under it, as well.
Fighters, Barbarians, and Paladins, who stand the front line and trade blows with enemies in melee could also be grouped together under a base-class/archetype.
Rogues, Rangers, Monks, Warlocks and perhaps other classes are mobile and do damage more surgically, they could be grouped together under a base-class/archetype.
Wizards & Druids cast all kinds of spells and such, so they could be in one too.
We could call these base-class/archetypes: Leader, Defender, Striker and Controller.
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? Join the Old Guard of 4e"You want The Tooth? You can't handle The Tooth!" - Dahlver-Nar. "If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly" - E. Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Nov 15, 2012 - 3:55PM
#64
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2012
|
My suggestion is that they might share a "common base class/archtype". With that in mind there might be a way to clean up the design and make the classes more modular.
So, since Warlords and Bards both "Heal and improve morale," they could be grouped under this base-class/archetype? And, since Clerics /also/ do both those things, they could go under it, as well.
Fighters, Barbarians, and Paladins, who stand the front line and trade blows with enemies in melee could also be grouped together under a base-class/archetype.
Rogues, Rangers, Monks, Warlocks and perhaps other classes are mobile and do damage more surgically, they could be grouped together under a base-class/archetype.
Wizards & Druids cast all kinds of spells and such, so they could be in one too.
We could call these base-class/archetypes: Leader, Defender, Striker and Controller.
no i'm not talking about role. I'd actually like all classes to have the capability to fulfill any role, but not be forced to.
I think the warlord and the bard share the theme of using words to perform X. Magical and non-magical variants of each are fine. Some non-magical variants might be playstyle specific and include martial healing, and other types might not even have any healing or magic.
Either way I'm simply looking at the method by which they accomplish their goals. In the case of the warlord and bard that method is "word smithing", for lack of a better term. They both use communication and that's their implied framework, much like how the wizard and the warlock share spell casting and spells. In fact, I would support a list of powers that both classes could share depending on how they are built. For example, a militant bard or Skald might want tactical powers.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Nov 15, 2012 - 5:19PM
#65
|
Date Joined:
Mar 21, 2010
|
Depending on how you view the concept of the bard and the warlord, is it not possible that they share a common base class/archtype?
Both have been described in D&D as leaders that improve morale and make use of healing.
Terrible idea. Bards are repositories of oral traditions trained by Druids in that lore, A sort of communications network in the Celtic tribal culture. If they use magic its Druid magic like in 1e when the Bard was rightly a hard class to get into taking a long time and used Druid spells.
Warlords are a brand new class that does better than the old fighter what the old fighter was supposed to do be a party leader.
Bards arent' leaders. they Satire leaders back them up or make them fall, but arent leaders thmselves.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Nov 15, 2012 - 6:55PM
#66
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2012
|
Depending on how you view the concept of the bard and the warlord, is it not possible that they share a common base class/archtype?
Both have been described in D&D as leaders that improve morale and make use of healing.
Terrible idea. Bards are repositories of oral traditions trained by Druids in that lore, A sort of communications network in the Celtic tribal culture. If they use magic its Druid magic like in 1e when the Bard was rightly a hard class to get into taking a long time and used Druid spells.
Warlords are a brand new class that does better than the old fighter what the old fighter was supposed to do be a party leader.
Bards arent' leaders. they Satire leaders back them up or make them fall, but arent leaders thmselves.
IMO, any class can be a leader. Leadership was actually a non-weapon prof in 2e. Then again, building morale isn't always something associated with leadership alone; a good song or even a magical spell could do the same. And yes, fighters and paladin types usually did take the leadership skill. Actually, I was reading a few blogs from 2008 that were rather upset with the warlord concept. The claim was that it was basically just another version of a paladin or cleric.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Nov 15, 2012 - 7:11PM
#67
|
Date Joined:
May 22, 2003
|
Whenever I see people on here arguing about what a Class IS, I always end up with a headache from my eyes rolling so much...
People are fighting about the D&DN bard and warlord before we've even seen them. To me, the conversation is confusing. I don't personally see how they are similar at all. Maybe that's because I had a Bard in 2e who was so irreconcilable with a warlord that my brain can't compute it? I mean, what are we even talking about? That they are the same on some reductive level decided by a rando on the internet? Sure? Next problem...
I wish we could favorite posts! (I would favorite this one.)
In some ways, I see both these classes as two sides of the same coin.
The most basic, primary purpose of both is to provide support and enhancement to others in the party through their actions.
Warlords are the more Martial/Fighter side of the coin where the Bard is more Arcane/Roguish.
Warlords utilize their tactical knowledge and battlefield prowess to direct and rally their party members.
Bards utilize their artistic talents and understanding of emotions to encourage and inspire their party members.
A Warlord's effect focus should be in allowing others within the party to do more....to attack more, to move more, to save more, etc. A Bards effect focus should be in allowing others within the party to do better...to hit more, to move farther, to save better, etc.
In many ways, I see their abilities to affect the enemy following a similar parth both in style and application.
With that said...while I see them as two very SIMILAR classes, I don't really see them as functioning in a way where one is the subset of another. IE I can't see it working where "Bard" is the class and "Warlord" is a subset. I think the methods in how they do things are far too different for that to work. The Warlord should be a far better combatant while the Bard should be far more skilled, and that's before you get into the core class abilities.
I think both need to be a seperate class IF you're doing seperate classes all across the bard.
I agree with what's being said, and I'd like to add that I don't see the warlord as being a 'support' class in any sense related to the way in which the bard is a 'support' class.
The bard supports the efforts of his allies, whereas the warlord directs the efforts of his allies. One is a sidekick, the other is choosing the play.
I think it underserves the warlord to think of him in terms of being a 'support' class. -- He's something different that isn't well described using our common understanding of the term.
So, since Warlords and Bards both "Heal and improve morale," they could be grouped under this base-class/archetype? And, since Clerics /also/ do both those things, they could go under it, as well.
Fighters, Barbarians, and Paladins, who stand the front line and trade blows with enemies in melee could also be grouped together under a base-class/archetype.
Rogues, Rangers, Monks, Warlocks and perhaps other classes are mobile and do damage more surgically, they could be grouped together under a base-class/archetype.
Wizards & Druids cast all kinds of spells and such, so they could be in one too.
We could call these base-class/archetypes: Leader, Defender, Striker and Controller.
I see what you did there... 
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Nov 15, 2012 - 7:14PM
#68
|
Date Joined:
May 22, 2003
|
Terrible idea. Bards are repositories of oral traditions trained by Druids in that lore, A sort of communications network in the Celtic tribal culture. If they use magic its Druid magic like in 1e when the Bard was rightly a hard class to get into taking a long time and used Druid spells.
Warlords are a brand new class that does better than the old fighter what the old fighter was supposed to do be a party leader.
Bards arent' leaders. they Satire leaders back them up or make them fall, but arent leaders thmselves.
We don't force the druid to adhere to any historical reference, why would we do so with the bard?
IMO, any class can be a leader. Leadership was actually a non-weapon prof in 2e. Then again, building morale isn't always something associated with leadership alone; a good song or even a magical spell could do the same. And yes, fighters and paladin types usually did take the leadership skill. Actually, I was reading a few blogs from 2008 that were rather upset with the warlord concept. The claim was that it was basically just another version of a paladin or cleric.
Another version of the paladin? Huh... interesting. 
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Nov 15, 2012 - 9:58PM
#69
|
|
|
i think I each class should be distinct in terms of its mechanics and concept. As such, overlap should be minimized and where it occurs in function, it should be distinguished by mechanics.
That being said, then the warlord should be fighter/martial and the bard rogue/arcane (or possibly druid, but i think arcane is more in line with how people see the class these days) as others have suggested.
Under this concept, warlords grant allies actions and reactions, and don't have magical powers. They don't need them. Any healing maneuvers should grant temporary hit points, because inspiration and adrenalin may get you to stay in the battle but they don't heal you. When they wear off, you are still injured. It also helps make them distinct from bards and clerics (the other "leader" classes).
Bards would maintain their role as lore masters, magical inspirer's, and dabblers in skills and magic (including a little healing).
Both end up inspiring and supporting their allies, but with distinct and non overlapping mechanics.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Nov 15, 2012 - 10:19PM
#70
|
Date Joined:
Oct 26, 2004
|
Many would argue that since HP don't represent actual physical damage it's perfectly alright for non-magic effects to heal HP damage.
|
|
|
