Why a warlord?
Filed under D&D 4E Preview on March 27, 2008
Keywords: 4E, classes, roles
Two weeks ago, Wizards gave us a sneak peek at the warlord class. I have to confess I’m a little confused about why WotC decided to include two new classes and delay the release of some of the core classes from the previous edition. Why couldn’t the sorcerer fulfill the striker role the warlock is taking? The difference between the classes is little more than flavor, and it would have saved some development time, I imagine.
I had a similar reaction to the warlord. Why not use the fighter? I could personally see the fighter as a defender, leader or a striker. That led me to an analysis of WotC’s implementation of roles. The borrowing of an MMO mechanic has certainly raised eyebrows. I’m not opposed to roles, but I would have gone about the mechanic in a different way.
In 4E, each class is designed to fulfill a single role. All of its powers and features work toward a singular purpose. There is no branching without multiclassing (hopefully, that’s allowed in 4E).
Instead of such pigeonholing, why not use another 4E concept, builds, to give players the option of choosing a role as a separate function from classes. Organize powers into pools based on roles. Slap a tag on a feat that lets the player know what role it would help her character to play. Create templates as part of the class entry that provide players with a path to follow if they want their character to be a controller, defender, leader or striker.
Binding classes to roles forces a player to make sacrifices. If I want to be a controller, I have to be an arcane spellcaster. If I want to be a fighter, I have to be a defender. Roles are a great mechanic for aiding players in identifying what their character should be doing to be the most effective, and for making a game more accessible. 4E’s implementation of this mechanic overcompensates and ends up robbing players of freedom and creativity.
Related Posts
- Sneak peeks at 4E
- Multiclassing and retraining
- Going rogue in 4E
- Prestigious paragon paths
- Tiefling: the new drow
March 27th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
I have to admit not really understanding the appeal of the warlord class myself. But I will say this about the warlock vs. sorcerer thing: They are QUITE different. The sorcerer was basically the wizard, the major difference was limiting the spells known and allowing them to cast what they wanted on the fly. The warlock, on the other hand, is not like the wizard at all, except that they happen to both be “casters”. But that’s like saying the bard is the same as the wizard because they are both casters. We all know that isn’t true at all.
As for roles, they seemed to be useful for putting parties together - it’s useful to have a diversity of roles, but I think you are giving them too much weight. I think you are going to find that you still have a LOT of freedom and creativity within each class, and that the roles really aren’t as limiting (or even necessary) as they first appear.
March 28th, 2008 at 5:05 am
I’m not 100% sure on this, but a lot of the impressions I got from playing 4th Ed. and talking to the developers is that classes are not pigeonholed or forced into taking only the abilities which apply to their class. I remember a few references to a rogue being able to take a fighter ability if they want, it’s just that the PHB groups them so that there are suggested abilities by class.
Even if this doesn’t end up being true, it’s a table-top RPG and if you want to be able to take other classes abilities then talk to your DM and do it!
On topic, I’m a very big fan of the warlord and can’t wait to see the full rules and play one. Having a character who is automatically defined as the “leader” of the party, and indeed who’s abilities back up that idea (allowing other players to tactically attack a target the warlord chooses out of their turn, etc.) really excites me.
March 28th, 2008 at 9:16 am
Welcome, Bartoneus. I really enjoy Critical Hits.
I imagine that roles have a pretty big impact on design decisions. As additional supplements are published, new powers and abilities will enable the class to better fulfill it’s role. Sure, I could take an ability from another class, but doesn’t that defeat the purpose?
I personally don’t like the choice of “leader” as one of the roles. I think “tactician” is a more accurate description, and doesn’t create a subtle message that the other classes aren’t suitable to act as the party leader from a roleplaying perspective. It’s a relatively minor pet peeve, however.