D&D 5E Warlords: Martial Healing is where it is meant to be

[Savage Wombat]

Honestly, and I say this as a Pathfinder die-hard, I'm glad they're actually doing the warlord the way 4e players will recognize

I can agree with this, also as a PF player. If WotC doesn't work a little harder (from what I've seen) at reaching out to 4e players, the stated goal of unification will fail hard.

 

[MoonSong]

Finally something encouraging for a change. Wonder if they plan to support lazy warlords too.

 

[Warbringer]

Finally something encouraging for a change. Wonder if they plan to support lazy warlords too.

I'm not sure the action economy supports it if there is only one "reaction" per turn

 

[Iosue]

I feel kinda bummed that the vocabulary and concerns of 4e players and Pathfinder players have so diverged that we sometimes aren't actually speaking the same RPG language.

How do you think I feel as a BECMI player?!

 

[MoonSong]

I'm not sure the action economy supports it if there is only one "reaction" per turn

But a warlodr could grant a free reaction by forgoing an action and at later levels two.

 

[Warbringer]

But a warlodr could grant a free reaction by forgoing an action and at later levels two.

Then we don't have "one reaction" per turn, just a base of that.

I'd rather they resist the urge to tinker with the action economy and instead stay focused on streamline combat.

Now I could see "as part of your reaction ...X", but then its not really a lazy warlord

 

[1of3]

I'm not sure the action economy supports it if there is only one "reaction" per turn

What does this have to do with Reactions? Warlord spends action, to have another character attack. Where is a Reaction involved?

 

[Warbringer]

What does this have to do with Reactions? Warlord spends action, to have another character attack. Where is a Reaction involved?

Next's speed comes from its limited action economy (or at least in part). I fully expect that the game will focus on constraining the number actions a player takes, namely by replacing "as a free action", "to as a reaction". The exchange mine for yours breaks that, IMO.

 

[Balesir]

What does this have to do with Reactions? Warlord spends action, to have another character attack. Where is a Reaction involved?

There really needs to be some action economy cost for the character taking the action as well as the warlord. If there isn't you get absurd scenarios with a 'party' of one puissant archer and X warlords; by the end of round 1 the archer has unleashed a waggonload of arrows (as each warlord gives the archer an action) and lain waste to the enemy army...

 

[jrowland]

There really needs to be some action economy cost for the character taking the action as well as the warlord. If there isn't you get absurd scenarios with a 'party' of one puissant archer and X warlords; by the end of round 1 the archer has unleashed a waggonload of arrows (as each warlord gives the archer an action) and lain waste to the enemy army...

Heh. Sounds like my workplace in real life...too many chiefs, not enough braves. Except in real life, the archer would shoot less arrows for every warlord "encouraging" him.