Daniel D. Fox
Explorer
I cannot believe people are still upset over the class name. If you don't like it, houserule it. Rule 0, folks!
-
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!
Excerpt: The Warlord
- Thread starter Shroomy
- Start date
Absolutely agreed. Same thing with the bonus to initiative provided by Combat Leader. Everyone just adds the +2 to their character sheets and we're done with dealing with that ability. Easy enough.Dausuul said:I intend to go with option 3, which is:
This power affects all allies regardless of location, because I see no reason to bother tracking stuff like this. I'm not sure what the gain of tracking it would be, but I very much doubt it outweighs the cost of counting off squares to see if you're close enough to the warlord. If it were 1 or 2 squares, that would be different, but 5 squares is a big enough radius that it might as well just say "the entire battlefield" and leave it at that.
Protagonist
First Post
Indeed, houseruling names is something most people who are not gaming in English have done for years anyway. The German translations for warlock (Hexer) and sorcerer (Hexenmeister) are annoyingly similar (with Hexenmeister essentially meaning "master warlock") and most people I know also substitute fighter (Kämpfer) with warrior (Krieger), probably because Kämpfer (not unlike fighter I guess) more generic (and less archaic) compared to Krieger.
You know, I thought I was the only one that thinks "Grell's Warlord" when I hear the term warlord.
re: Necessity of the Cleric in previous editions
I think we might be defining it too tightly. What I always saw was that you needed SOME form of healing, be it the somewhat not-really-a-healer-rogue with the CLW, or the favoured soul or the cleric, someone in the party HAD to have access to healing.
My understanding of 4E is that thanks to the Second wind mechanic and the 5 min rest, regain healing, that a party that consists of a Rogue (with no healing wands), Fighter, Wizard is a valid party choice whereas such a choice in previous editions was simply not possible.
Basically, no one role is needed to complete an adventure is what 4E is aiming for (and until we get our hands on the books, we don't know how close WOTC has achieved this goal).
Thus, if the standard D&D party consists of a Leader (cleric), Striker (Rogue), Controller (Wizard), Defender (Fighter) I could take say a 10th level adventure and use it as is if the party consisted of say 2 Strikers (Rogue & Warlock), and 2 Defenders (Fighter and Paladin) and not have the party simply be stumped.
I imagine that the above "unbalanced" party will have to compensate for tactics but their basic class abilities should allow them enough flexibility to handle the same challenges as the standard party.
Again, until I see it in my hands and run a few adventures, I'm neutral to how effective this really would be.
(For example, in 3.x, I could run any 5th level adventure or higher without modification for a party consisting of only clerics and or druids and by 10th, the same could be said if I added a party consisting of just wizards/sorcerors. However, I would consider it cruel and unbecoming for a DM to run a 7th level adventure or higher AS IS if the party had neither an arcane or divine class.
re: Necessity of the Cleric in previous editions
I think we might be defining it too tightly. What I always saw was that you needed SOME form of healing, be it the somewhat not-really-a-healer-rogue with the CLW, or the favoured soul or the cleric, someone in the party HAD to have access to healing.
My understanding of 4E is that thanks to the Second wind mechanic and the 5 min rest, regain healing, that a party that consists of a Rogue (with no healing wands), Fighter, Wizard is a valid party choice whereas such a choice in previous editions was simply not possible.
Basically, no one role is needed to complete an adventure is what 4E is aiming for (and until we get our hands on the books, we don't know how close WOTC has achieved this goal).
Thus, if the standard D&D party consists of a Leader (cleric), Striker (Rogue), Controller (Wizard), Defender (Fighter) I could take say a 10th level adventure and use it as is if the party consisted of say 2 Strikers (Rogue & Warlock), and 2 Defenders (Fighter and Paladin) and not have the party simply be stumped.
I imagine that the above "unbalanced" party will have to compensate for tactics but their basic class abilities should allow them enough flexibility to handle the same challenges as the standard party.
Again, until I see it in my hands and run a few adventures, I'm neutral to how effective this really would be.
(For example, in 3.x, I could run any 5th level adventure or higher without modification for a party consisting of only clerics and or druids and by 10th, the same could be said if I added a party consisting of just wizards/sorcerors. However, I would consider it cruel and unbecoming for a DM to run a 7th level adventure or higher AS IS if the party had neither an arcane or divine class.
lutecius
Explorer
Before the debate over interpretation issues and mechanical implications really starts, I just had to say...
BLAH! Bring the bard back, and without the otherworldly patron shtuff, please.
This excerpt reinforces my opinion that the whole class wasn’t needed.
That "hit = random bonus for allies" routine...
doesn’t make sense half of the time.
may be a good way to buff others without having to take a back seat in combat, but as the class’ main shtick, it gets tired quickly, just like the marshall's auras.
would make good powers for the fighter or better yet, let’s see …
- an inspiring champion whose title doesn't imply an army of followers?
- one who did not need divine magic to inspire people in legend?
- one who never had a clearly defined role besides being a charismatic fighter/cleric hybrid?
To me it’s pronounced PAL-uh-din.
(see? I got to use those die-smileys)
Obnoxious characters might provide great roleplaying opportunities and all but in my experience, they tend to do funny things to team spirit
BLAH! Bring the bard back, and without the otherworldly patron shtuff, please.
This excerpt reinforces my opinion that the whole class wasn’t needed.
That "hit = random bonus for allies" routine...
doesn’t make sense half of the time. may be a good way to buff others without having to take a back seat in combat, but as the class’ main shtick, it gets tired quickly, just like the marshall's auras. would make good powers for the fighter or better yet, let’s see … - an inspiring champion whose title doesn't imply an army of followers?
- one who did not need divine magic to inspire people in legend?
- one who never had a clearly defined role besides being a charismatic fighter/cleric hybrid?
To me it’s pronounced PAL-uh-din.
(see? I got to use those die-smileys)
Warlords like yours are bound to get caught in "friendly fireball" ('oops I forgot! I didn’t take that golden wyvern adept power...hated the name...my bad')Jack99 said:
Obnoxious characters might provide great roleplaying opportunities and all but in my experience, they tend to do funny things to team spirit
Last edited:
Moon_Goddess
Have I really been on this site for over 20 years!
med stud said:
Actually, that's ranger, Texas Highway patrol are called the Texas Rangers. But we've managed to always deal with that one.
The reason Wizards are the only controller in the first PHB? Because the Sorcerer was not 'done' probably because it's whole reason for being (the wizard to knows less spells but gets to use them more often) has been obliterated by the changes to resource management so he needs a whole new trick. Whatever they came up with was not good enough and no other iconic controllers were popular enough.
But are a lot of groups really going to be complaining that they HAVE to have a wizard? My guys fight over who gets to play the wiz. Cleric, not so much.
But to the warlord healing mechanic I am reminded of Lord of the Rings Online which is imo the only current mmo worth playing for more than half an hour and names it's hit points 'morale' as in middle earth there is no rationalization for people coming back from the dead (unless they happen to be angels) and magical healing is very limited. So instead of getting killed you are 'defeated' and healing is done by 'inspiring hope' and the like. It is all basically hand waving but if you are looking for a rationalization for warlord healing it fits.
But are a lot of groups really going to be complaining that they HAVE to have a wizard? My guys fight over who gets to play the wiz. Cleric, not so much.
But to the warlord healing mechanic I am reminded of Lord of the Rings Online which is imo the only current mmo worth playing for more than half an hour and names it's hit points 'morale' as in middle earth there is no rationalization for people coming back from the dead (unless they happen to be angels) and magical healing is very limited. So instead of getting killed you are 'defeated' and healing is done by 'inspiring hope' and the like. It is all basically hand waving but if you are looking for a rationalization for warlord healing it fits.
