Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Evaluating the warlord-y Fighter
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Jester David" data-source="post: 6525189" data-attributes="member: 37579"><p>I'm not a fan of the warlord triggering them for a couple reasons. </p><p>First, because it doesn't work well with alternate hit dice rules. For DMs that want slower healing the warlord becomes problematic. </p><p>Second, and more importantly, it doesn't actually extend the adventuring day. It serves as some emergency healing, but the party can't adventure more than they could without the warlord, having the same healing per day. </p><p>Third, it does quirky things to the resource management of the game. It means one player can't use one of their class features if another character poorly managed their resources (i.e. hit dice). And it means players are less incentivised to take a short rest, since the warlord can heal otherwise, which might penalize character that recharge powers on a short rest, as fewer party members will benefit from the rest. </p><p></p><p>No other class feature touches hit dice. No feats affect hit dice. Most options related to that mechanic deliberately refer to the vaguer "regain hit points during a rest", because how hit dice function are left out of the assumptions of how other mechanics works. This is part of the modular design of the game. </p><p></p><p>Now, working based on a particular assumption of the rules is fine for your home game. But it's poor when designing something to be used at any other table. It'd be like designing a class that assumes the existence of magic item shops, or the use of the honour statistic, or point buy vs rolling for stats. </p><p>Personally, I'd love to design some monsters assuming the Sanity ability score was the norm. But that'd just limit their usefulness. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>If we're working under the assumption you can talk someone into regain hp, I don't see why should that be limited to the warlord. It's not something that requires physical mastery or skill that the uninitiated cannot even attempt, like a sword move or acrobatic trick. What can the warlord possibly say that the bard or the paladin cannot? What if the warlord told the bard what to say? Would it work then? Is it really so impossible that the bard could not attempt it, roll a natural 20, and do just as well as the warlord? </p><p></p><p>I agree that martial abilities should be unique to those classes. But there's a big difference between the specialized action no one can attempt (action surge, sneak attack), the things martial characters should be better at but anyone can try (multiple attacks, shoving), and the stuff non-martials can do almost as well (making a melee attack). </p><p>Inspiring someone with a speech doesn't sound specific enough to be limited to one class. It's almost something anyone can attempt, be they wizard or rogue or even barbarian. Especially since inspiring speeches in fiction can be given by anyone given the opportunity. Yes, the warlord could arguably be better at it, but that doesn't necessarily mean everyone else should be denied the opportunity to try. </p><p></p><p>If you're going to say that you can heal through morale, go all in and give it to everyone. Especially the bard who literally has a class feature designed around inspiring people through talking. (Arguably, the bard was also healing through inspirational words in 4e. )</p><p>The warlord and the bard overlap a lot. Really, so much of what the warlord was in the 4e PHB1 worked solely because the bard wasn't out yet. It filled the niche of the charismatic leader. (And necessitated the bard being more magical.) But with a bard already in the game, and a bard able to smack people with a sword and rely on strength, the charismatic warlord seems less necessary. That archetype is filled. Having a Charisma focused warlord and the bard is like having a scout and ranger. The two classes need to be pushed farther apart and the unique elements of the warlord brought to the forefront. And what makes the warlord unique is not its healing. It's everything else. </p><p>The warlord seems better served focusing on the tactical leader. The strategist. The intelligent fighter. Charisma is nice, but seems less necessary. Being charming isn't what makes a warlord a good leader, and doesn't work as well with the tactical features that are unique to the class. </p><p>That's the difference between making a good interpretation of the strategist archetype and making a good update of the 4e warlord class. I'd rather see the former.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jester David, post: 6525189, member: 37579"] I'm not a fan of the warlord triggering them for a couple reasons. First, because it doesn't work well with alternate hit dice rules. For DMs that want slower healing the warlord becomes problematic. Second, and more importantly, it doesn't actually extend the adventuring day. It serves as some emergency healing, but the party can't adventure more than they could without the warlord, having the same healing per day. Third, it does quirky things to the resource management of the game. It means one player can't use one of their class features if another character poorly managed their resources (i.e. hit dice). And it means players are less incentivised to take a short rest, since the warlord can heal otherwise, which might penalize character that recharge powers on a short rest, as fewer party members will benefit from the rest. No other class feature touches hit dice. No feats affect hit dice. Most options related to that mechanic deliberately refer to the vaguer "regain hit points during a rest", because how hit dice function are left out of the assumptions of how other mechanics works. This is part of the modular design of the game. Now, working based on a particular assumption of the rules is fine for your home game. But it's poor when designing something to be used at any other table. It'd be like designing a class that assumes the existence of magic item shops, or the use of the honour statistic, or point buy vs rolling for stats. Personally, I'd love to design some monsters assuming the Sanity ability score was the norm. But that'd just limit their usefulness. If we're working under the assumption you can talk someone into regain hp, I don't see why should that be limited to the warlord. It's not something that requires physical mastery or skill that the uninitiated cannot even attempt, like a sword move or acrobatic trick. What can the warlord possibly say that the bard or the paladin cannot? What if the warlord told the bard what to say? Would it work then? Is it really so impossible that the bard could not attempt it, roll a natural 20, and do just as well as the warlord? I agree that martial abilities should be unique to those classes. But there's a big difference between the specialized action no one can attempt (action surge, sneak attack), the things martial characters should be better at but anyone can try (multiple attacks, shoving), and the stuff non-martials can do almost as well (making a melee attack). Inspiring someone with a speech doesn't sound specific enough to be limited to one class. It's almost something anyone can attempt, be they wizard or rogue or even barbarian. Especially since inspiring speeches in fiction can be given by anyone given the opportunity. Yes, the warlord could arguably be better at it, but that doesn't necessarily mean everyone else should be denied the opportunity to try. If you're going to say that you can heal through morale, go all in and give it to everyone. Especially the bard who literally has a class feature designed around inspiring people through talking. (Arguably, the bard was also healing through inspirational words in 4e. ) The warlord and the bard overlap a lot. Really, so much of what the warlord was in the 4e PHB1 worked solely because the bard wasn't out yet. It filled the niche of the charismatic leader. (And necessitated the bard being more magical.) But with a bard already in the game, and a bard able to smack people with a sword and rely on strength, the charismatic warlord seems less necessary. That archetype is filled. Having a Charisma focused warlord and the bard is like having a scout and ranger. The two classes need to be pushed farther apart and the unique elements of the warlord brought to the forefront. And what makes the warlord unique is not its healing. It's everything else. The warlord seems better served focusing on the tactical leader. The strategist. The intelligent fighter. Charisma is nice, but seems less necessary. Being charming isn't what makes a warlord a good leader, and doesn't work as well with the tactical features that are unique to the class. That's the difference between making a good interpretation of the strategist archetype and making a good update of the 4e warlord class. I'd rather see the former. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Evaluating the warlord-y Fighter
Top