Why we need Warlords in D&DN

[ferratus]

A minor sacrifice? When it's something lauded?

It is a particular build from a particular class. Not all the builds from 3e survived into 4e, and not all builds will survive into 5e. I'll give up the lazylord to keep the Tactical Warlord, the Inspiring Warlord, and the Resourceful Warlord.

Will there be anything included from 4e left in D&D Next at this rate?

I'm starting to think that we'll be lucky if critical confirmation rolls aren't reintroduced. But 4e didn't catch on, so you have to expect a clawback. I imagine there will be about as much of 4e in 5e as there was 2e: Skills and Powers in 3e.

 

[LurkAway]

Hmm, so out of curiousity, what is it that makes something like the avenger palatable even though forced to use the divine power source but find it unpalatable if the warlord was not martial power sourced?

 

[ferratus]

The Avenger is designed to be an assassin for the gods. The warlord wasn't.

Frankly, a similar argument to yours would be that the Fighter (whom the warlord closely resembles) should be a divine class because he takes enough punishment to kill 4 horses and that is unrealistic.

You have to admit, that having the Fighter be a divine class would make him cease to be a Fighter. The same is true for the Warlord. That's the problem.

 

[mlund]

Except presumably that kills off the lazy warlord.

I don't see why it would have to, though. The Fighter super-class would come with, what, martial power source, decent hit-points, light shield proficiency, martial weapon proficiencies, scale armor proficiency, and a common theme of using Strength to hit? A Guardian build gets big shields, plate armor, more HP, and defender-type powers. A Slayer gets extra damage mechanics. The Tactician gets damage mitigation and buffs.

Other than picking up Scale Armor rolling the Warlord into the Fighter family really wouldn't deviate much from the Warlord build you can make in 4E.

This is true in AD&D. But in 4e, I'm not sure it's as clear-cut - provided the buff from the temp hp is enough to keep a PC up during the fight, they can spend their own surges in a short rest to actually "heal".

I like the idea of the Warlord being able to let an ally who is hit cash in their healing surge for Temporary Hit Points before the damage is rolled.

I don't have much confidence in the survival of healing surges going into 5e. If people hate inspiring word, you know they hate healing surges 10x as much. Only magic and and two weeks bed rest are enough to recover from near mortal injuries. For realism.

You forgot to put the quotation marks around "realism."

Seriously, though, I think the only thing negotiable about Healing Surges in 5E is the name. Optional rules for playing without them will probably be included for people that want to revisit the golden age of having your Level 1 character die from a kobold javelin in the first round of the first combat of the adventure.

- Marty Lund

 

[TwinBahamut]

You know, I've always wondered why people complain about the Warlord's Inspirational Word power as if it is somehow inconsistent or unusual. It isn't. It makes perfect sense within the context of 4E as a whole, and given the way HP damage and Healing Surges work in that system.

In 4E, the natural tendency of damage is that it goes away on its own given enough time. Any amount of hitpoint damage will be healed automatically at the end of battle during the typical five minute short rest (given there are enough healing surges left over). Every character can use a Second Wind once per battle to heal themselves almost as effectively as they can be healed by a Warlord, Cleric, or Bard.

In fact, it is easy enough to say that, in 4E, the main forms of at-will Cleric healing are no different from the healing provided by the Warlord. Both are "Word" powers that depend on triggering the healing surges, the innate ability of a character to heal themselves. A Cleric's Healing Word can be flavored rather naturally as a spiritual morale boost, rather than as an act of miraculous injury-removal. A Cleric needs to use a Daily Power in order to perform anything that is flavored as actual miraculous healing (Cure Light Wounds is a level 2 Daily Utility Power, not a basic healing technique).

So, if a Cleric and a Warlord are quite literally using the exact same method to restore hitpoint damage, and such healing works to a limited extent for every single character, why is it problematic only for the Warlord? Why is it the Warlord's problem?

Anyways, I guess the whole point of this is to say that I both like the Warlord as it exists as an independent class (though I'd be fine with it being called the Lord), and just as importantly I like the entire system of healing used in 4E, which helps justify the Warlord and removes the game's dependancy on magic for healing seen in older editions. It works for me, and I'd be really disappointed to see it go away.

 

[Dausuul]

You know, I've always wondered why people complain about the Warlord's Inspirational Word power as if it is somehow inconsistent or unusual. It isn't. It makes perfect sense within the context of 4E as a whole, and given the way HP damage and Healing Surges work in that system.

a) People who don't like 4E's handling of hit points overall, cite the warlord as an example of what they don't like. I am fairly certain you will never find a person who hates inspiring word but thinks the rest of the 4E hit point system is A-okay.

b) The same people, who don't want to see 4E's approach to hit points repeated in 5E, worry that the inclusion of the warlord will necessitate the 4E approach.

I have a fair bit of sympathy for a). I am not worried about b). "Gives you back hit points exactly like a cleric" is not central to the warlord concept. The warlord just needs some means to perform the cleric's function of mitigating damage. Indeed, I think it would make the class more distinctive and interesting to have its own damage mitigation mechanic.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

OK, so i want to play a super cool leader that is one part Captian John Sheriden (takes a bearly passable defence and creates a kick butt offence out of it), one part Captian Kirk (weird out of the box plans mixed with suronding yourself with good advisors) and one part Major John Sheapord (was almost drumbed out of the millatary for taking a big risk to save a life and almost got alot of people killed)
but my character isn't sci fi yelling orders from a bridge, or walking through a star gate, I am a unite commander that organizes and takes point.

That was the first character I played in 4e, it was a tac warlord, I played him as an eladrin who went spiral tower paragon path. He had only a little magic in him (his innate fey nature) he was a vetrain of a war between the Shadar Kai and the eladrin 12 years before game started. I was good with a sword, I granted extra attacks, and extra saves and had a bunch of healing powers.

why should my character not be playable in this new system?

It really urks me sometimes... It feels like some people want the following to be the way it works:

Player 1: "I want to be a wizard and alter reality, and base it on this cool anima/comicbook/cartoon/novel/movie"

everyone: "Cool Cool"

Player 2: "I want to be a fighter and do the impossable , and base it on this cool anima/comicbook/cartoon/novel/movie"

everyone: "Dude, fighters are normal people, no impossable du, just what a normal guy with a sword could do back int he dark ages"

 

[GMforPowergamers]

"Gives you back hit points exactly like a cleric" is not central to the warlord concept. The warlord just needs some means to perform the cleric's function of mitigating damage. Indeed, I think it would make the class more distinctive and interesting to have its own damage mitigation mechanic.

how about this, we take BOTH healing word and inspireing word away (and all the others) and we give clerics a minor action cure light, range touch, and the warlords a range touch Move action "bind wounds"

 

[Hussar]

This whole conversation presumes that 5e will continue HP healing in previous edition traditions.

What if they go with something simple in core? Like, no healing at all? You simply regain all your HP after any encounter but, you only have a much lower number of hit points during an encounter and very little (if any) in combat healing.

So, Warlords interupt damage (and/or) give temp HP, the same as any other Leader class.

That would resolve a lot of the believability issues, retain non-magical healing, and allow a much higher paced game without having to worry about 15 minute adventuring days.

 

[pemerton]

You know, I've always wondered why people complain about the Warlord's Inspirational Word power as if it is somehow inconsistent or unusual. It isn't. It makes perfect sense within the context of 4E as a whole, and given the way HP damage and Healing Surges work in that system.

<snip>

In fact, it is easy enough to say that, in 4E, the main forms of at-will Cleric healing are no different from the healing provided by the Warlord.

<snip>

A Cleric needs to use a Daily Power in order to perform anything that is flavored as actual miraculous healing (Cure Light Wounds is a level 2 Daily Utility Power, not a basic healing technique).

Agreed completely, can't XP you again yet, but am afraid that [MENTION=58197]Dausuul[/MENTION] is right on this point.