Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="LightPhoenix" data-source="post: 6101787" data-attributes="member: 115">The abstraction of Hit Points has been a weakness D&D has had since the beginning.  There are ways to do it better (as other systems have shown), but it would require changing HP.  Why bother rocking the boat after this many editions?  Besides, it wouldn't fit into the design goals for making the game feel more old-school.  As such, the dichotomy between non-magical healing (rest, Warlords, what have  you) and magical healing is not something that the team really needs to  spend a lot of time on, in my opinion.As for the Warlord itself, I thought it was a decent enough concept.  However, mechanically the class really felt like a consequence of 4E's dependance on the grid (moving allies, etc).  Thematically, the class seems to butt heads with the Bard and Fighter too much for my liking.  For example, inspiration-based healing practically screams "Bard-flavored healing."  I think the Warlord falls into the same bucket that the Paladin and Ranger fall into; the pseudo-multi-class warriors.  The only difference is that the Paladin and Ranger have had numerous editions to settle into their concepts, whereas the Warlord hasn't.  I say bring on the Warlord for 5E's launch, but realistically it will probably be held back for a tactical module (if that happens).I'm interested to see what they want to do with Favored Enemies to make it somewhat broadly applicable.  I'm hoping it is something along the lines of a string of feats/abilities versus static bonuses.  Hard to say anything without seeing it.</blockquote>

Verification