The Warlord, about it's past present and future, pitfalls and solutions. (Please calling all warlord players)

[Jester David]

Because it doesn't mean Archmage. It's the class's name. Much like a new Wizard is still learning to Wizard, a new Warlord is still learning to Warlord.

-O

it was the Marshall for 5 years (2003-08) and the warlord for the same (2008-13). The name changed once it can change again.
We're not going back to fighting man, thief, or magic user. Names are allowed to change if it's a better reflection of the class, especially if the name doesn't have 2+ editions of history.

There's talk of renaming the barbarian, to something like berserker as "barbarian" has cultural implications. If we can change the name of the barbarian we can rename the warlord.

 

[Obryn]

it was the Marshall for 5 years (2003-08) and the warlord for the same (2008-13). The name changed once it can change again.
We're not going back to fighting man, thief, or magic user. Names are allowed to change if it's a better reflection of the class, especially if the name doesn't have 2+ editions of history.

There's talk of renaming the barbarian, to something like berserker as "barbarian" has cultural implications. If we can change the name of the barbarian we can rename the warlord.

It's not a better reflection of the class, is the thing. If a 1st level Wizard can be a Wizard, a 1st level Warlord can be a Warlord.

Names can change, if there's good reason. Thief to Rogue made sense (and started in 2e class groups). Magic-User and Fighting Man were always cumbersome (and for the second one, sexist). I see no good reason to change it; every D&D player these days knows what the Warlord is, and its name is perfectly descriptive.

Additionally, it's one of the only new 4e classes that made a big impact - it was mechanically tight and the first time the concept really worked in D&D. (Marshalls were just plain bad.) . The more Next retcons 4e out of existence, the less interested I am.

-O

 

[Jester David]

It's not a better reflection of the class, is the thing. If a 1st level Wizard can be a Wizard, a 1st level Warlord can be a Warlord.

Names can change, if there's good reason. Thief to Rogue made sense (and started in 2e class groups). Magic-User and Fighting Man were always cumbersome (and for the second one, sexist). I see no good reason to change it; every D&D player these days knows what the Warlord is, and its name is perfectly descriptive.

Additionally, it's one of the only new 4e classes that made a big impact - it was mechanically tight and the first time the concept really worked in D&D. (Marshalls were just plain bad.) . The more Next retcons 4e out of existence, the less interested I am.

-O

Warlord (from wikipedia):A warlord is a person with power who has both military and civil control over a subnational area due to armed forces loyal to the warlord and not to a central authority.
Warlord (from Dictionary.com): 1. a military leader, especially of a warlike nation. 2. a military commander who has seized power, especially in one section of a country.
Warlord (from Merriam-Webster): 1. a supreme military leader 2. a military commander exercising civil power by force usually in a limited area

How does a level 1 character control a military and region? How is this an accurate name for someone who loosely commands (but may not actually be the leader of) a force of 3-7 people?
The story and narrative of the name are saying one thing, and the actual class is saying another. There is an unsatisfying narrative disconnect.

The term "warlord" is simply too big. It's writing a cheque with its name that its class features can't cash. Like archmage or high priest. It's like calling a class "general". It's a fine name and evokes the right feeling, but a "general" is just too of a name for a level 1 sixteen-year-old farmboy taking father's sword and going out in search of adventure.

 

[I'm A Banana]

"Scream HPs back at you?" Honestly? That's where we're going? Thanks for illustrating my point...

Is your point that some people aren't that impressed with "inspirational healing?" Because that's all I was illustrating there. That I'm not that impressed with inspirational healing. And I don't think that the presence or absence of such a thing is a dealbreaker for me one way or the other. I play 4e super fine with it in there. I'd play NEXT super fine with it in there, too. But changing the fluff of cure light wounds to be "GET UP YOU MAGGOT" instead of "God makes your chest wound go away" isn't anything especially earth-shaking in my world.

It's a litmus test. That doesn't mean that the warlord healing is specifically essential, in and of itself. It means that a lack of warlords* and warlord healing can indicate whether the rest of the game will have any interest for me.

Yeah, my litmus tests are personally much more about experience in play than about a certain limited mechanical expression of a given rule.

* To be clear - I'm talking about the standard game, same place I'd expect to see barbarians and sorcerers. Not the core game; I understand that's back-to-basics red box style.

Hey, maybe. Some people don't like paladins, and won't use 'em, some people don't like barbarians and won't use 'em, some people don't like inspirational healing, and won't use a warlord with it.

Personally, I think it would be a bit of a mistake to mandate that a warlord class be automatically and irrevocably saddled with inspirational healing, but I think it would make a lot of sense from a "Lets be inclusive!" standpoint to include it, along with several alternate mechanics for inspiring word not actually restoring HP. 5e's about options for everyone, and scream-heals are certainly essential for some folks, just like fat halflings are essential for some folks and Vancian wizards are essential for some folks, so lets put it in, but like we're including different Wizarding systems and different halfling sub-races, lets give Warlords some options other than putting HP back into you with stern words.

 

[Obryn]

How does a level 1 character control a military and region? How is this an accurate name for someone who loosely commands (but may not actually be the leader of) a force of 3-7 people?
The story and narrative of the name are saying one thing, and the actual class is saying another. There is an unsatisfying narrative disconnect.

The term "warlord" is simply too big. It's writing a cheque with its name that its class features can't cash. Like archmage or high priest. It's like calling a class "general". It's a fine name and evokes the right feeling, but a "general" is just too of a name for a level 1 sixteen-year-old farmboy taking father's sword and going out in search of adventure.
[/FONT]

If we're quoting the dictionary, this conversation has degenerated.

It's a class name. In this case, it's an extremely recognizable class name from a successful edition of D&D, known to existing players and easily grasped by new ones. I can't understand why changing it is so very important.

Now, if you want to bring 1e level titles back, I'm on board, but I don't think that's where you're going.

Is your point that some people aren't that impressed with "inspirational healing?" Because that's all I was illustrating there. That I'm not that impressed with inspirational healing. And I don't think that the presence or absence of such a thing is a dealbreaker for me one way or the other. I play 4e super fine with it in there. I'd play NEXT super fine with it in there, too. But changing the fluff of cure light wounds to be "GET UP YOU MAGGOT" instead of "God makes your chest wound go away" isn't anything especially earth-shaking in my world.

Yeah, my litmus tests are personally much more about experience in play than about a certain limited mechanical expression of a given rule.

I'd say "experience in play" is more an outright "whole game experience" than a litmus test. I don't drink the beaker of fluid to find out if it's acidic.

It's a sampling of the design philosophy. If Next is including it, then I know it says certain things about the design directions. If it's not, then it's saying something different. I can't grasp what's such a big deal here?

It's kind of like someone saying, "If Next has something like 'Come and Get It,' I'm not interested." And it makes some bit of sense because it's a window into the system as a whole. Without a Warlord it's basically saying that 4e's innovations aren't worth considering. Without the warlords' healing, it's saying very specific things about the nature of hit points and simulation, and I'm not interested in a higher-sim system at this point.

Again - I'm not saying it means the system will be crap without these elements. I'm saying I'll have very little interest in buying into it.

Hey, maybe. Some people don't like paladins, and won't use 'em, some people don't like barbarians and won't use 'em, some people don't like inspirational healing, and won't use a warlord with it.

Personally, I think it would be a bit of a mistake to mandate that a warlord class be automatically and irrevocably saddled with inspirational healing, but I think it would make a lot of sense from a "Lets be inclusive!" standpoint to include it, along with several alternate mechanics for inspiring word not actually restoring HP. 5e's about options for everyone, and scream-heals are certainly essential for some folks, just like fat halflings are essential for some folks and Vancian wizards are essential for some folks, so lets put it in, but like we're including different Wizarding systems and different halfling sub-races, lets give Warlords some options other than putting HP back into you with stern words.

And all of this is dandy. I'm not angling for a Core inclusion - I'm saying (1) the class must exist somewhere, and (2) it must have healing capabilities. For my interest in playing the system, not for my determination of whether or not it's a good system to play. I want Next to be successful, but that doesn't mean it has to be a system I want to play.

-O

 

[PopeYodaI]

The term "warlord" is simply too big. It's writing a cheque with its name that its class features can't cash. Like archmage or high priest. It's like calling a class "general". It's a fine name and evokes the right feeling, but a "general" is just too of a name for a level 1 sixteen-year-old farmboy taking father's sword and going out in search of adventure.

Just a quick side comment: Isn't the nature of virtually all class names to exaggerate? Big world with big egos. And playing off of your farmboy, if you were the best fighter in your little village and went out into the world one day (as seems to be the fashion in virtually all role-playing games), why wouldn't you call yourself something big and fancy? Things like hubris can take awhile to beat out of people.

 

[I'm A Banana]

It's kind of like someone saying, "If Next has something like 'Come and Get It,' I'm not interested." And it makes some bit of sense because it's a window into the system as a whole.

I agree that it's similar, but I still think someone not playing the game because of one thing they dislike is a little too Manichean for me to not be mystified by it. I feel the same way about single-issue voters. "Well, he doesn't agree with me on X, and therefore, he is unworthy of my vote." Or about picky daters: "Oh, I don't like people with blue eyes." Man, just go out with this girl, it will probably be fun. Dude, nobody agrees with you on X, why be so rigid?

I disagree that you can somehow divine an entire design ethos from a single rule like that. There's lots of powers in 4e that aren't Come and Get It (and 4e had a pretty cohesive design ethos!).

That said, I won't say it's not fair. It's not something I share, but we've all got our things, and if inspirational healing is your thing, well, I'm not so free of sin that I can cast that first stone. It doesn't seem particular to you, either (I've had convos with [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] where he seems to feel much the same way), so it's probably something that's at least moderately prevalent in those who feel that 4e is their bag. So asking that NEXT have it doesn't seem like a bad idea -- it's supposed to be The Peacemaker Edition.

And all of this is dandy. I'm not angling for a Core inclusion - I'm saying (1) the class must exist somewhere, and (2) it must have healing capabilities. For my interest in playing the system, not for my determination of whether or not it's a good system to play. I want Next to be successful, but that doesn't mean it has to be a system I want to play.

As an option, I've got no qualms with it, really. As the only option, it would make me a sad panda. Swapping "gives you HP back" for "lets you fight at negative HP" or "gives you temporary HP" or "gives you a bonus to AC" is mostly a trick of the maths, anyway.

I still am not sure I quite comprehend the dramatic monolithic importance placed on this singular particular game mechanic for some people yet, but I also don't understand why anyone dislikes ascending AC, which ruins anything after 2e for some people. I feel like an option for inspirational healing isn't something that NEXT would have to rule out.

 

[FireLance]

It seems really odd to me to hang your opinion of an entire game based on whether or not some dude can scream HPs back at you. In either direction. I mean, everyone's got their thing, so it's not a problem, it just seems odd to me. Like, "I hate this one Wizard spell, and thus it all sucks."

I completely agree. I occasionally read similar views expressed in messageboard posts, and I usually fail to see where the posters come from. It is a point of view I can't understand. I just don't get it.

 

[Jester David]

I'm not sure how important healing is to the warlord.

I think you could make a just fine and peachy version of the other leader classes that didn't heal. The fact all had to heal was a problem of 4e's symmetry if design and now all leaders had to also be healers.
I think what makes bards into bards, or druids into druids, or artificers into artificers has little to do with pumping heals into the party. Alternate healing might actually help differentiate these classes from the cleric. An ardent might "heal" via biofeedback and speeding natural healing, bards might maximize natural healing during rests, and artificers might "heal" by preventing damage via armour buffs.

5e classes do not do a lot. They might have one or two class features. I'd rather see a warlord that can do more uniquely warlordy things than one that has to do fewer warlordy things but can also heal like a cleric.

 

[Obryn]

I disagree that you can somehow divine an entire design ethos from a single rule like that. There's lots of powers in 4e that aren't Come and Get It (and 4e had a pretty cohesive design ethos!)....I still am not sure I quite comprehend the dramatic monolithic importance placed on this singular particular game mechanic for some people yet, but I also don't understand why anyone dislikes ascending AC, which ruins anything after 2e for some people. I feel like an option for inspirational healing isn't something that NEXT would have to rule out.

I completely agree. I occasionally read similar views expressed in messageboard posts, and I usually fail to see where the posters come from. It is a point of view I can't understand. I just don't get it.

You can think of it as symbolic, if that helps any. It's not precisely, but if it helps... Yeah, I think it's a keyhole into the design philosophy. I've seen precious little from Next right now that shows much influence from 4e design or that WotC's design will be innovative or interest me. If it's willing to jettison the most successful new 4e class, well... what should the lesson there be?

And that's fine - it certainly doesn't have to be my new favorite game. The bottom line is that there's a lot of good games out there that I'd like to play. I'm fine with Next not being one of them, and I nevertheless hope it finds great success.

I think you could make a just fine and peachy version of the other leader classes that didn't heal. The fact all had to heal was a problem of 4e's symmetry if design and now all leaders had to also be healers.
I think what makes bards into bards, or druids into druids, or artificers into artificers has little to do with pumping heals into the party. Alternate healing might actually help differentiate these classes from the cleric. An ardent might "heal" via biofeedback and speeding natural healing, bards might maximize natural healing during rests, and artificers might "heal" by preventing damage via armour buffs.

5e classes do not do a lot. They might have one or two class features. I'd rather see a warlord that can do more uniquely warlordy things than one that has to do fewer warlordy things but can also heal like a cleric.

This more or less exemplifies the design philosophy issue I'm talking about. If hit points are defined in such a way that a warlord's inspirational healing all of a sudden seems cleric-like to the designers, I'm not a fan.

Healing's a pretty important function, when it comes down to it, and always has been. I've seen nothing so far to indicate that healing will somehow become unimportant in Next; indeed, since HP/damage are the major scaling mechanics, it's going to be as vital as ever. I'll say it plainly: Next shouldn't necessitate a cleric in the party. If divine spellcasters are the only ones who can actually heal HPs rather than some kind of also-ran like temp HPs or damage reduction, we're (1) back to needing magic to solve all the party's problems, and (2) right back to needing a cleric.

-O