ChrisCarlson
First Post
I'm just reading a lot of what appears to be confirmation bias and unsupported opinion. Sorry, nothing of what you said is dependable with actual facts or statistics.
D&D 5E Purple Dragon Knight = Warlord?
- Thread starter mellored
- Start date
Imaro
Legend
Earlier in this thread I listed out numerous hp resources available to an all martial party... the Rally maneuver, hit dice, Second Wind, Potions of Healing (Greater, Superior, Supreme)... Healer's Kits...Antitoxin...Healer Feat...Inspiring Leader...Lucky (to mitigate save effects)...Durable (mitigate low hit point gains during short rests)...Potions of Vitality... Martial Adept feat (so others can get Rally)...and so on. This also excludes certain class specific abilities like the fighter's Second Wind or Barbarian's rage that allow damage mitigation or healing on a personal level...
When you clog up the forums (until this temporary one was created) with numerous threads roughly by the same 10 posters about the same thing (a single class)... when you make spurious claims as to what the game can't handle (when in fact it can) to support your desires for a single class... when you use derogatory terms from the edition wars... when yo make the debate over a single class a proxy for the old edition wars... it may be more passive aggressive as opposed to outright negativity... but make no mistake it's still negativity.
Well I'm not the only one whose called you out for it... so maybe it'd be better, to avoid confusion, if you didn't use the terms since they rarely if ever seem to add anything of worth to what you are stating and aren't facilitating whatever "learning" or "remembrance" you seem to want them too... truth be told the terms are a bit of a deterrent for viewing what you say in a positive or even neutral light... especially, as I commented on before, since you seem to use the "h4ter" term magnitudes more than the "4venger" term.
There are still options for levels 1 & 2 for martial classes who need healing... potions of healing, healer's kits, antitoxin, Second Wind, 1/2 damage for Barb's rage,medicine skill... and if you really want an all martial party that is able to heal up in combat there's a specific variant called out for it in the DMG... that allows a character to use a healing surge in combat and spend up to half his or her hit dice ... for each die spent the character rolls and adds Con modifier regaining that many hit points (why do I need the warlord again??).
Perhaps the warlord just wasn't popular enough or needed enough (especially with the variant healing rules and the support abilities of some of the martial classes) to be included or even to be a priority. It's not about 4e because there are plenty of things from 4e in 5e... it's about the warlord class.
And honestly this is where your rhetoric goes wrong for me, I personally don't like the warlord class... thematically it does nothing for me and actually irks me because it takes away from how I view fantasy tropes (which I've explained before but in a nutshell almost every hero and his sidekick displays the power to inspire people in some way at some point in nearly every story). For others it's their verisimilitude factor and how the warlord breaks it... for others it's the fact that the warlord is in essence making their character "better" at what they are supposed to be a master of without any type of magic or "other" explanation to it, and so on... yet for you it's about 4e and it's inclusion in 5e... for you it's still about the edition wars... the problem is you're the only one fighting them right now with the warlord class as a proxy. Let go of the hurt over 4e and maybe you could start to understand why some people just don't like the walord class that have nothing to do with 4e.
No... it's only about that for you and possibly a scattering of other edition warriors, still trying to stoke the flames and fight the good fight.
Hussar
Legend
I'd point out that wanting a lower magic campaign is hardly a 4e thing. Anyone who played Basic/Expert D&D played low magic D&D. 3 of the 8 classes could cast magic, but, it was extremely limited. Clerics only gained spells at second level and up, got no bonus spells, and got to choose form a list of what, 8 spells per spell level? Wizards and Elves were slightly better, getting a single randomly determined spell at 1st level and no additional spells, other than what they could find, at higher levels. And still a list of spells of what, 12 spells per spell level?
Even AD&D didn't go down the road of high magic. Yes, there were a few more spell casting classes, but, the "fighter" type classes only got spells after name level (9th), Bards got spells at 8th, and clerics had virtually no direct combat spells until about 4th or 5th spell level. And again, wizards were limited to a handful of spells and a handful of casting per day.
In either edition, it was perfectly reasonable to go through encounters without seeing a single spell being cast. Generally higher magic campaigns were the result of magic items - 100 charge wands tend to up the magic level of the game. But the classes very much were low magic.
Then comes 3e and then 4e which greatly increase the magic in the game. Vastly expanded spell lists, clerics getting direct combat spells even at 1st level, bonus casting, free spells in spell books, Sorcerers etc. 4e then piled on with at-will casting.
5e has continued that trend, obviously. What, 5 out of 30 some classes without magic by 3rd level? The idea that you'd go an encounter without seeing a single spell is laughable. It's pretty rare to see a single round where no spells are cast.
5e is Harry Potterverse. Not that it isn't balanced. it is and I'm not complaining about that. Everyone is contributing and that's great. But, it's an extremely high magic game. When you have spells (plural) being cast just about every single round of every single encounter, that is NOT a low magic campaign.
What is wanted by me, and I would guess others, is the ability to rein that back in. To go back to a 1e or 2e feel, with low magic heroes, with a modern ruleset that is honestly very cool.
The idea that "low magic campaign" is solely a 4e thing is ludicrous and ignores the history of the game. Good grief, go read Dragonsfoot if you think that low magic is somehow a new thing to D&D.
Even AD&D didn't go down the road of high magic. Yes, there were a few more spell casting classes, but, the "fighter" type classes only got spells after name level (9th), Bards got spells at 8th, and clerics had virtually no direct combat spells until about 4th or 5th spell level. And again, wizards were limited to a handful of spells and a handful of casting per day.
In either edition, it was perfectly reasonable to go through encounters without seeing a single spell being cast. Generally higher magic campaigns were the result of magic items - 100 charge wands tend to up the magic level of the game. But the classes very much were low magic.
Then comes 3e and then 4e which greatly increase the magic in the game. Vastly expanded spell lists, clerics getting direct combat spells even at 1st level, bonus casting, free spells in spell books, Sorcerers etc. 4e then piled on with at-will casting.
5e has continued that trend, obviously. What, 5 out of 30 some classes without magic by 3rd level? The idea that you'd go an encounter without seeing a single spell is laughable. It's pretty rare to see a single round where no spells are cast.
5e is Harry Potterverse. Not that it isn't balanced. it is and I'm not complaining about that. Everyone is contributing and that's great. But, it's an extremely high magic game. When you have spells (plural) being cast just about every single round of every single encounter, that is NOT a low magic campaign.
What is wanted by me, and I would guess others, is the ability to rein that back in. To go back to a 1e or 2e feel, with low magic heroes, with a modern ruleset that is honestly very cool.
The idea that "low magic campaign" is solely a 4e thing is ludicrous and ignores the history of the game. Good grief, go read Dragonsfoot if you think that low magic is somehow a new thing to D&D.
In the Rules Cyclopedia, twelve spells of each level for Magic Users; nine spells of each level (and only seven levels) for Clerics. Strictly speaking it was possible to get Fighters who were spellcasters too, at twelfth level and up, by becoming either a Paladin or an Avenger (Lawful and Chaotic holy champions respectively). There were some more if you included the Gazeteers and other supplementary material, of course.
8th for Paladins and 7th for Rangers, iirc. Also 1e Bards were quite peculiar, and 2e ones were casting from 1st.
I would suggest that the big increase in the spell lists started towards the end of 1e and was extremely pronounced in 2e - multi-volume sets of Priest spells and Mage spells (and magic items) certainly suggests so. This not unexpectedly coincides with the Forgotten Realms becoming the leading setting with it's massive emphasis on how cool and amazing and ubiquitous and special Magic! has to be.
With exactly the same things being emphasised in this edition that were emphasised in 2e and 3e, I'm pretty sure that's not happening.
Hussar
Legend
Bluenose said:
High magic campaigns were certainly not emphasized in 2e. At least, not at the outset in core. The DMG advises to strongly restrict magic items. Only 4 of the classes could cast spells at 1st level (bards, druids, clerics and MU's) and clerics and druids in the PHB had virtually no direct combat spells until about 3rd spell level for druids and 5th for clerics.
Which is my point. If you wanted to play a low magic campaign pre-3e, it would not be a problem - just stick to core. 3e is the edition that put magic items and spells directly in the player's hands - easily craftable magic items, casters gaining bonus spells, and a greatly expanded spell list. Again, in 2e, you could go entire encounters without using any spells. That's laughable after 3e, though 4e and into 5e. At least 4e included the option of going low magic. 3e and 5e don't do it at all.
And, you talk about Rules Cyclopedia. I was talking about Basic/Expert. Considering the Rules Cyclopedia didn't come out until 1991, there's about a decade of low magic B/E D&D right there.
My point is, outside of 3e and 5e, you could play D&D as a low magic game without any real problem. Adding in a Warlord means that 5e can be played this way as well. Seems a pretty small price to pay to support a style of play as old as the hobby.
Remathilis
Legend
[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] and [MENTION=49017]Bluenose[/MENTION]...
Slight error correction: Bards started at 2nd level. They had no spell slots at first, but gained one at 2nd level. They started with 1d4 spells (rolled randomly) and had to find more while adventuring. They also capped at 6th level magic (leading to the 2/3rds caster of 3e and 5e playtest) but his caster level = his bard level (which when paired with the rogue track was impressive). They had access to ALL wizard spells as well, rather than a unique list. (Yes, that meant magic missile and fireball).
Doing a quick Tally: Non-magical classes in PHB1:
BECMI: 4 (Fighter, Thief, Dwarf, Halfling)
1e: 4 (Fighter, Thief, Assassin, Monk*)
2e: 2 (Fighter, Thief)
3e: 4 (Barbarian, Fighter, Monk* Rogue)
4e: 4 (Fighter, Rogue, Warlord, Ranger)
5e: 4** (Barbarian, Fighter, Monk*, Rogue)
* Assuming non-magical = no spellcasting, not no-supernatural abilities.
** Of course, EK, AT, and Wo4E give spellcasting to these classes, but unlike the other classes, it is possible to remain nonmagical via the majority of their subclass choices)
So 2-4 classes per book (out of anywhere from 7-12 classes) or roughly 1/4th of the classes are "nonmagical" (BECMI is the oddball: 4/7 means the majority are nonmagical but that is skewed by classes essentially being demihuman variants of fighter). That also does mean 3/4ths are partial or total spellcasters though, meaning magic is assumed, if not encouraged.
Slight error correction: Bards started at 2nd level. They had no spell slots at first, but gained one at 2nd level. They started with 1d4 spells (rolled randomly) and had to find more while adventuring. They also capped at 6th level magic (leading to the 2/3rds caster of 3e and 5e playtest) but his caster level = his bard level (which when paired with the rogue track was impressive). They had access to ALL wizard spells as well, rather than a unique list. (Yes, that meant magic missile and fireball).
Doing a quick Tally: Non-magical classes in PHB1:
BECMI: 4 (Fighter, Thief, Dwarf, Halfling)
1e: 4 (Fighter, Thief, Assassin, Monk*)
2e: 2 (Fighter, Thief)
3e: 4 (Barbarian, Fighter, Monk* Rogue)
4e: 4 (Fighter, Rogue, Warlord, Ranger)
5e: 4** (Barbarian, Fighter, Monk*, Rogue)
* Assuming non-magical = no spellcasting, not no-supernatural abilities.
** Of course, EK, AT, and Wo4E give spellcasting to these classes, but unlike the other classes, it is possible to remain nonmagical via the majority of their subclass choices)
So 2-4 classes per book (out of anywhere from 7-12 classes) or roughly 1/4th of the classes are "nonmagical" (BECMI is the oddball: 4/7 means the majority are nonmagical but that is skewed by classes essentially being demihuman variants of fighter). That also does mean 3/4ths are partial or total spellcasters though, meaning magic is assumed, if not encouraged.
Remathilis
Legend
Calling Bull on this.
D&D has never done low-no magic well. AD&D is lower than 3e on in terms of magical saturation, but its never did either well without extensive houseruling.
Since my days with 1e are limited, I'll use 2e as my great example. First off, as I just said it had the lowest amount of classes with no spellcasting (2/9). Second, there is no "low magic" setting in official AD&D. Dark Sun, the poster child of "low magic" in D&D, still had preservers (which suffered no penalties other than "can't lay waste to nations with my fireball like defilers can", clerics of the elemental realm, druids, templars, and EVERYONE WAS PSIONIC (either with a wild talent or the psionicist class). There were all sorts of things like life-shaped items (magic other another name) as well.
Not very "low" magic to me, and it doesn't get better from there. The majority of non-humanoid/non-animal monsters have magic (be it innately, spellcasting ability, or were created by it like undead or constructs). Every module ever was awash in it. Every setting had at least one high level wizard (most had several) and almost all of them introduced new spells, magic items, and spellcaster classes. And that was 2e.
D&D, it seems, has never tried to support nor actually supported, low magic. No magic is practically impossible without severe modifications to the ruleset and huge changes to source material (everything from monsters to math).
In that sense, 5e isn't much further off that 2e is. I mean, if your going to limit spellcasting then cutting EK/AT is as easy as cutting wizards and clerics. Unlike 3e, there is no assumption of PC crafting magic items, nor is there an assumed Christmas Tree of items needed to keep the math working (like 3e and 4e).
Which brings us back around to the thrust of this tangent; is a warlord needed to do nonmagical?
Well, 35 years of D&D before 2008 is asking that question. If you say "yes", then you agree nonmagical play was impossible before 4e. If you say "no", then you agree that a warlord is unneeded (not unwanted, but unneeded) to do nonmagical play.
Imaro
Legend
You realize in 5e the purview of magic items is totally under the control of the DM... thus magic items, creation, etc. are as restricted as the DM wants them to be. I'm not sure why the number of classes that can cast spells at 1st level is relevant...especially if they can cast spells once they go beyond 1st level... or are you claiming a low-magic campaign won't rise higher than 1st level??
Bull... as has been shown in this very thread. Again, this vague assertion is presented without any specifics or any examples to back it up. 5e gives you the tools and options to run a low-magic game... at least in so well as any other edition did...
Again... bull 5e can easily handle a low magic game... For how... please read my previous posts in this very thread.
Sadras
Legend
Sure, I never argued against this line of thinking.
I hear you, but -
Tiefling and Dragonborn included. Second Wind included. Action Surge included. Saving Throws per Round included. some 4e Fighter and 4e Warlord type powers included as Manuevers. Hit Dice Mechanic is a variant on the 4e Surge Mechanic. I could go on.
What I'm saying is, if it weren't the Warlord, it would be something else.
Last edited:
Remathilis
Legend
Exactly.
The notion that 5e completely forgot 4e existed (or tried to remove all evidence of it) is patently false. In addition to the items you listed, there is plenty of other elements that made the jump (abilities that recharge on short rests, unaligned, marking maneuver, eladrin as a sample subrace, Dawn War deities in the DMG, dozens of spells derived from 4e powers, succubi working with devils, etc). The thing is, they didn't make it over in the form they existed in 4e.
That's not a slam against that edition, however. I could make a reasonable list of the things that came over from 3e (feats, ability score increases, skills, multi-classing, sorcerers, etc) that don't work like they did in 3e either. (Especially true on sorcerers, note the number of complaints geared at how they don't feel "like 3e sorcerers").
So while I don't disagree that having a single warlord class would be a nice thing for those who want said thing, I don't believe WotC is obligated to give it to you. They are not obligated out of some sense of entitlement born out of internet message-board fights, nor our they obligated to support low/no magical styles any more than they are obligated to support Masque of the Red Death (1890's gothic horror).
Its fine to want a warlord class, but its folly to demand WotC make you one.
