The Warlord needs to be its own class because no version of the fighter has ever offered any mechanical support for the tactical genius archetype. They attract followers and a castle in some early edition, but thats not at all the same thing as "this character is a strategic mastermind, and here's a bunch of rules support that let you play that even if you yourself are not a strategic mastermind in real life." Only two classes ever have in D&D--The Marshall and the Warlord, and of the two the Warlord was better and more fun to play. Shoehorning the warlord into the fighter wouldn't just dilute it, it wouldn't really be in line with any version of the fighter in any prior edition.
IMO, if anything, we should drop the fighter. It really doesn't have a "thing". Anyone should be able to hit with weapons.
Change that to 'we should drop the fighter as a skill-deprived meathead good for nothing but knocking his opponents over the head' - I can almost agree.
Change the fighter into something more interesting and they have a decent class. And if that means dumping the fighter and creating a non-healing warlord to take its place I probably wouldn't mind.
The game needs a excellent melee combatant. It doesn't necessarily need a musclebound lunkhead who can only fight and nothing else.
Of course, I'd rather see the fighter get some benefits which apply to the exploration and interaction pillars. And if that means they steal some bits from the warlord, so be it.
Someone else said it best in an earlier thread: If you showed up for most non-class based games with a totally one-sided character like the fighter, a character with few abilities outside of combat, the DM would shake his head and likely suggest that you swap a few of your combat abilities out for some non-combat abilities because otherwise you won't be very useful for much of the game. But in D&D it is not only recommended - it is the standard design.
D&D Next does not need to create the warlord as a top level class simply because it was designed that way in 4e.
Maybe not in the design sense, but in the sense of Next having even plausible denyability when it pretends to be inclusive. Yes, the warlord needs to be it's own class, if only so they can point to one, solitary example of something great from 4e making it into Next.
Doubtless, like the fighter, it would end up an enferior class, existing only for casters to have something to be superior too, but it's mere existance, no matter how bowdlerized, would give them a fig leaf.
Why does it need to be its own class?
Why does the Bard need to be it's own class? Why does the Paladin need to be it's own class? Why does the Barbarian have to be it's own class?
Those 3 would be way easier to fold into it's "parent" class than a Warlord into a Fighter.
D&D Next does not need to create the warlord as a top level class simply because it was designed that way in 4e.
Maybe not in the design sense, but in the sense of Next having even plausible denyability when it pretends to be inclusive. Yes, the warlord needs to be it's own class, if only so they can point to one, solitary example of something great from 4e making it into Next.
Doubtless, like the fighter, it would end up an enferior class, existing only for casters to have something to be superior too, but it's mere existance, no matter how bowdlerized, would give them a fig leaf.
Why does it need to be its own class?
Why does the Bard need to be it's own class? Why does the Paladin need to be it's own class? Why does the Barbarian have to be it's own class?
Those 3 would be way easier to fold into it's "parent" class than a Warlord into a Fighter.
How are they "way easier"?
What is a Bard? A Wizard that sings.
What is a Paladin? A Cleric with plate armor and roleplaying restrictions.
What is a Barbarian? A meathead that only hits things...oh, but he also gets angry.
Face it, if the Warlord is getting folded into the Fighter for poor reasoning, these 3 classes ave even less reason to remain their own classes.
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way. Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken. Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken. King Fisher Does an excellent job at keeping an enemy disabled in a few ways. Strong. Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading. Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered. Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square. Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong. Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked. Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic. Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation. Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses. Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat. Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent. Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof. Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it. Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways. Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful. The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken. Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken Unnamed Avenger|Runepriest/Hammer of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered. Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5. Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong. Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight, only far more broken. Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken. Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.
D&D Next does not need to create the warlord as a top level class simply because it was designed that way in 4e.
Maybe not in the design sense, but in the sense of Next having even plausible denyability when it pretends to be inclusive. Yes, the warlord needs to be it's own class, if only so they can point to one, solitary example of something great from 4e making it into Next.
Doubtless, like the fighter, it would end up an enferior class, existing only for casters to have something to be superior too, but it's mere existance, no matter how bowdlerized, would give them a fig leaf.
Why does it need to be its own class?
Why does the Bard need to be it's own class? Why does the Paladin need to be it's own class? Why does the Barbarian have to be it's own class?
Those 3 would be way easier to fold into it's "parent" class than a Warlord into a Fighter.
How are they "way easier"?
What is a Bard? A Wizard that sings.
What is a Paladin? A Cleric with plate armor and roleplaying restrictions.
What is a Barbarian? A meathead that only hits things...oh, but he also gets angry.
Face it, if the Warlord is getting folded into the Fighter for poor reasoning, these 3 classes ave even less reason to remain their own classes.
It's becoming more and more apparent that people really misunderstand pretty much everything about the bard.
The bard has no parent class.
The bard in 1E had all the joys of the rogue and the fighter, druid spells, AND his own stuff piled on top. The bard in 2E could use any weapon a fighter could, any spell a wizard could (oftentimes sooner), and access to the 'rogue only' skill coolness, AND his own stuff piled on top. The bard in 3E was its own beast entirely, focusing mainly on its own stuff (inspiration, lore, etc.), though still almost matched the rogue in skills, had a broad spell-list, could rock light armor without incurring penalties for spellcasting, and had good weapon proficiencies (including the whip, which was utter sickness). The bard in 4E was an 'arcane' but with the ability to go full melee, full ranged, or full spellcaster.
No. parent. class.
Thus, you could not relegate the bard as a subclass without ignoring huge aspects of its core.
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way. Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken. Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken. King Fisher Does an excellent job at keeping an enemy disabled in a few ways. Strong. Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading. Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered. Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square. Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong. Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked. Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic. Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation. Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses. Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat. Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent. Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof. Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it. Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways. Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful. The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken. Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken Unnamed Avenger|Runepriest/Hammer of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered. Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5. Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong. Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight, only far more broken. Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken. Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.
D&D Next does not need to create the warlord as a top level class simply because it was designed that way in 4e.
Maybe not in the design sense, but in the sense of Next having even plausible denyability when it pretends to be inclusive. Yes, the warlord needs to be it's own class, if only so they can point to one, solitary example of something great from 4e making it into Next.
Doubtless, like the fighter, it would end up an enferior class, existing only for casters to have something to be superior too, but it's mere existance, no matter how bowdlerized, would give them a fig leaf.
Why does it need to be its own class?
Why does the Bard need to be it's own class? Why does the Paladin need to be it's own class? Why does the Barbarian have to be it's own class?
Those 3 would be way easier to fold into it's "parent" class than a Warlord into a Fighter.
How are they "way easier"?
What is a Bard? A Wizard that sings.
What is a Paladin? A Cleric with plate armor and roleplaying restrictions.
What is a Barbarian? A meathead that only hits things...oh, but he also gets angry.
Face it, if the Warlord is getting folded into the Fighter for poor reasoning, these 3 classes ave even less reason to remain their own classes.
It's becoming more and more apparent that people really misunderstand pretty much everything about the bard.
The bard has no parent class.
The bard in 1E had all the joys of the rogue and the fighter, druid spells, AND his own stuff piled on top. The bard in 2E could use any weapon a fighter could, any spell a wizard could (oftentimes sooner), and access to the 'rogue only' skill coolness, AND his own stuff piled on top. The bard in 3E was its own beast entirely, focusing mainly on its own stuff (inspiration, lore, etc.), though still almost matched the rogue in skills, had a broad spell-list, could rock light armor without incurring penalties for spellcasting, and had good weapon proficiencies (including the whip, which was utter sickness). The bard in 4E was an 'arcane' but with the ability to go full melee, full ranged, or full spellcaster.
No. parent. class.
Thus, you could not relegate the bard as a subclass without ignoring huge aspects of its core.
So easily done by adding a few abiltiies to the classes, or simply reflavoring what they already have, and adding in a Musician background and/or Specialty.
