Warlord archetype in CHAINMAIL

[Philotomy Jurament]

Again, you're smooshing two different kinds of "Morale" together and acting like they're the same thing. A fighter-type giving back hit points by just being in the same area has no precedent in pre-2005 D&D.

FWIW, while I don't have a problem with the general principle of success in combat "healing" a few hit points through morale-type effects, I ultimately decided against using this approach in OD&D. OD&D already has a morale mechanic, and I just use that, rather than introducing a change that I find somewhat jarring to my view of how D&D works.

I'd be much more accepting of it in 4E, which I tend to view as a completely separate FRP game, despite the "D&D" branding.

 

[howandwhy99]

No, they start as Man+1. A 4th level Fighting Man is a Hero (equal to 4 men).

(For the uninitiated, each Man gets 1d6 of 'fighting capability'. "Man+1" means 1d6+1. A Hero gets 4d6.)

That's right. I still think they'd qualify at 4th to use Hero abilities on the battlefield.

 

[Gentlegamer]

But really, my point is mainly that so many people complain the Warlord is not archetypal. This finding disproves that. The archetype was present in the same source used for original D&D.

The material you cite is for higher level fighting-men. That is, those are abilities suitable for higher level fighters, as it was assumed such characters were leaders (strongholds, followers, etc.). Creating a character class that is a "leader" from level 1 goes against this archetype is many ways.

 

[Fifth Element]

No, they start as Man+1. A 4th level Fighting Man is a Hero (equal to 4 men).

(For the uninitiated, each Man gets 1d6 of 'fighting capability'. "Man+1" means 1d6+1. A Hero gets 4d6.)

That's OD&D, not Chainmail. Chainmail does not consider character advancement. The hero and superhero are listed as different types, though they do fight as 4 men and 8 men respectively, which is likely the impetus for a 4th-level fighting man being a hero, and an 8th-level being a superhero, in OD&D.

 

[Fifth Element]

The material you cite is for higher level fighting-men. That is, those are abilities suitable for higher level fighters, as it was assumed such characters were leaders (strongholds, followers, etc.). Creating a character class that is a "leader" from level 1 goes against this archetype is many ways.

No, the material I cite makes no reference to levels at all. Chainmail does not consider levels. Heroes and Superheroes are listed separately among the types of fantasy characters.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Indeed. I used "fancy" as a replacement for more objectionable terms, which would certainly not apply to a skald.

Why would they apply to a bard, either? I don't get it. Is there something un-masculine about singing per se? Or perhaps it is the bards' subject matter of clan lineages and heroic tales? Are Celts just not manly enough, and so "real men" have to mock them?

Please explain why there is this macho denigration of the bard archetype. Please be very detailed in explaining the history and derivation of this attitude, because it just makes no sense to me.

I kid. Somewhat. I had a player in my games for a few months who was so over-the-top-I'm-a-manly-man type and he never let up on how "gay" he thought bards were. And to me it's just utterly nonsensical.

 

[Fifth Element]

Why would they apply to a bard, either? I don't get it. Is there something un-masculine about singing per se? Or perhaps it is the bards' subject matter of clan lineages and heroic tales? Are Celts just not manly enough, and so "real men" have to mock them?

Please explain why there is this macho denigration of the bard archetype. Please be very detailed in explaining the history and derivation of this attitude, because it just makes no sense to me.

I hope you're being as facetious as I am in this case.

Though I will say the artwork in 2E and 3E hasn't helped the bard in this regard.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

I hope you're being as facetious as I am in this case.

See my edit above. While you may have meant it tongue-in-cheek, I have met too many players who seem to be ignorant of the concept of a bard, who associate it more with Sir Robin's Minstrel than with Celtic folklore.

The Complete Book of Bards from 2E was excellent at showing how the class in D&D terms is just a set of skills that can be mapped onto any one of a number of archetypes, including the skald and (IIRC) the Celtic bard of legend (this latter may have been where they suggested using the 1e version).

 

[Fifth Element]

See my edit above. While you may have meant it tongue-in-cheek, I have met too many players who seem to be ignorant of the concept of a bard, who associate it more with Sir Robin's Minstrel than with Celtic folklore.

The Complete Book of Bards from 2E was excellent at showing how the class in D&D terms is just a set of skills that can be mapped onto any one of a number of archetypes, including the skald and (IIRC) the Celtic bard of legend (this latter may have been where they suggested using the 1e version).

Indeed. Unfortunately the foppish minstrel stereotype is well-established, and in my games I refer to the class as skald or scop in an attempt to avoid that perception.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

That's OD&D, not Chainmail.

Yes. Didn't intend to be confusing -- I was addressing howandwhy99's comment about Fighting Men starting the game as Hero+1; I assumed he was talking about OD&D, so my answer referenced OD&D, too.