NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jester David" data-source="post: 7369194" data-attributes="member: 37579">I agree. A warlord should be able to shake allies out of those conditions. But the difference, appart from magic, is that stun/charm/frighten are typically minor effects that affect you for a combat. The other ones like the magical lycanthrope or petrification—as well as non-magical conditions like disease and poison—take the character out. You can't play the fighter who is a statue or blind from disease. None of those subclasses have class features that boost their healing and aren't given healing spells for free. They can heal but so can a rogue that picks the Magic Initiate feat. And, technically, a ranger can also chose to learn/ memorise cure wounds but they're not a healer class. The point is that healing is NOT assumed of every cleric. You can play a cleric and never prep cure wounds and never cast lesser restoration and you'll still completely be a cleric. Because healing isn't an essential aspect of the cleric of Ares or Thor or Loki. And the warlord has a lot more in common with the armoured battle cleric of Ares than a robed healing cleric of Asclepius.It can fill the role of "combat healer". But the point is it doesn't entirely replace the cleric/ druid/ bard because there's some things it just cannot do. Which is problematic because it's a combat healer for two reasons: it was a leader in 4e and all leaders healed, and it's goal in 4e was to be a replacement for the cleric. In regards to the first point, in 5e, I would argue that all leaders do not have to heal. You can be the combat buffer without healing, like many bards. So the warlord is a healer not because the design of the edition warrants it, but because of the design of the previous edition required it. In regards to the second point, it's clear the warlord cannot be a full replacement for the cleric. Therefore, it can be something else. It can break free of the tiny mold 4e placed it in, and we can consider a warlord that doesn't heal, a warlord that controls or defends, or other alternatives. Plus, as implied above by the cleric subclass discussion, in 5e, class roles like "healer" or "tank" are more commonly placed in subclasses not in classes themselves. (Life cleric heals, War cleric tanks, Tempest cleric blasts, Forge cleric buffs, and Trickster cleric is sneaky.) Classes are left more open to pick a role. Why should the warlord be different in that regard? Why should the warlord not match how the rest of the classes are designed?A big reason it gets stapled onto the fighter is the "size" of the class. It needs to have a lot of iconic class features. Enough for fifteen or sixteen levels. But more importantly, to be a full class you really need five or six really distinct subclasses. And they should be story focused, where they can be described and that invokes their potential mechanics without actually mentioning the mechanics themselves.What are some potential warlord subclasses and their associated story/ flavour? The majority of warlord powers in the 4e PHB were unrelated to granting actions. And when you add in MP and MP2 the percentage gets even smaller. It's a defining feature pretty much because a couple fans decided it was and championed a fan made build as the "iconic" warlord. Even if it is iconic, adding something like that to the game should not come at the expense of balance or gameplay. The class still needs to be balanced.</blockquote>

Verification