D&D 5E D&D podcast!

[Blackwarder]

Um, no

HP and healing determine the pace and feel of the whole game, particularly whether the game is combat as war or combat as sport. You can't just slap together something at the last minute and call it good design, or add in some arbitrary modularity without addressing how HP and healing affect everything else.

I respectfully disagree with your premise, as we've seen in the previous packets it's fairly easy to dial the healing mechanic up or down be adjusting the rate of HD recovery and HP recovery, from full recovery with a short rest on one extreme to 1hp/day recovery on a long rest.

Things like healing surges and such should be part of a rules modules and would allow you to change the nature of the game.

Warder

 

[JamesonCourage]

Wouldn't Gandolf, to some degree to another, be Warlord-y? I'm no expert, and could very well be wrong.

 

[Argyle King]

Personally, I'd say that Captain America is a good example of a Warlord. Yes, in a fight, he's very competent; among the best. However, where he really shines is in his ability to coordinate a team and get them to use their abilities to greater tactical effect.

On a personal level, I like being able to play a fighter type who isn't required to be lacking in brains and lacking in skill. A guy who hits stuff until its dead is certainly a viable archetype, and a classic one at that, but there are plenty of literary examples of the cunning fighter as well. It's also nice to be able to play a charismatic fighter without being required to pick up the religious baggage of the paladin.

On that note... I feel that the Warlord deserves to be a class as much (or as little) as a Paladin. I'm fine with Warlord being achieved by backgrounds and specialties, but I feel that Paladin could be achieved the same way.

 

[Bluenose]

Wouldn't Gandolf, to some degree to another, be Warlord-y? I'm no expert, and could very well be wrong.

Possibly. I'd have said Aragorn certainly. Tanis from Dragonlance, Croaker from the Gray Company, Liu Bei from Rot3K, King Arthur, Jason and Nestor from Greek myth, Sharpe, and others. It's certainly a longer list than the people who can be identified as Clerics.

 

[lutecius]

The Warlord was one (if not THE) most beloved Class in 4E and now they want to get rid of it? They really don't want to win any 4E player over..

I'd say it was the most divisive. in concept, in its mechanics, even the name rubbed many people the wrong way.

I, however, disagree. I think the Warlord is just as thematically distinct as the Paladin, Ranger, and Barbarian. I don't consider Sun Tzu or Julius Caesar to be primarily Fighters. To me, Fighters should be amazing athletes who've reached the height of prowess at physical combat, using tools, armor, equipment, training, and their physical skills to their advantage. So, Beowulf? Fighter. Napoleon? Warlord.

I simply don't see Julius Caesar or Napoleon as dnd adventurers. they were only Caesar and Napoleon (the archetype) when they had troops to lead (or empires to rule). unless you have henchmen (which shouldn't happen at low levels) you'd have to consider other PCs as the warlord's army and that is problematic on many levels.

also, why should these leading skills even be tied to a fighter-y class by default? especially in a fantasy world, there is no particular reason for a sword-guy to be better at inspiring people or coordinating spells and sneaky attacks than a spellcaster or a rogue. if there is a leader archetype it would really be better served by independent skills.

Personally, I'd say that Captain America is a good example of a Warlord. Yes, in a fight, he's very competent; among the best. However, where he really shines is in his ability to coordinate a team and get them to use their abilities to greater tactical effect.

which makes him a fighter with inspiration/tactical skills. likewise Odysseus, Arthur and most examples of adventuring "warlords" have remarkable fighting, thieving or other abilities of their own.

 

[Obryn]

That's not to say that there are not characters following the Warlord trope. However, the ones that spring most readily to my mind aren't from the fantasy genre.* I don't claim to be the most well-versed fantasy aficionado, but I'm drawing mostly blanks. I can think of a few (mostly Black Company) characters who occasionally appear to do some "Warlordy" things, but they are always incidental and seem overshadowed by their personal kick-buttitude.

The thing is, large-scale generals had to start somewhere. Think squad sergeants in the Malazan series, for example.

And remember - to mix more kick-buttitude with less war-leading, you multiclass just like most other composite concepts.

I'd say it was the most divisive. in concept, in its mechanics, even the name rubbed many people the wrong way.

I simply don't see Julius Caesar or Napoleon as dnd adventurers. they were only Caesar and Napoleon (the archetype) when they had troops to lead (or empires to rule). unless you have henchmen (which shouldn't happen at low levels) you'd have to consider other PCs as the warlord's army and that is problematic on many levels.

"Problematic"? Amazing how I've never run into it.

Party leaders have always been a "thing" in D&D. Warlords are that, but better. Squad leaders.

also, why should these leading skills even be tied to a fighter-y class by default? especially in a fantasy world, there is no particular reason for a sword-guy to be better at inspiring people or coordinating spells and sneaky attacks than a spellcaster or a rogue. if there is a leader archetype it would really be better served by independent skills.

which makes him a fighter with inspiration/tactical skills. likewise Odysseus, Arthur and most examples of adventuring "warlords" have remarkable fighting, thieving or other abilities of their own.

By that logic, a Paladin is a Fighter with holy magic skills and a Ranger is a Fighter with druid magic and some skills.

-O

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I respectfully disagree with your premise, as we've seen in the previous packets it's fairly easy to dial the healing mechanic up or down be adjusting the rate of HD recovery and HP recovery, from full recovery with a short rest on one extreme to 1hp/day recovery on a long rest.

Things like healing surges and such should be part of a rules modules and would allow you to change the nature of the game.

Warder

Options do not automatically mean good options. The healing options given in the packets were arbitrary and rather lame. I'd like to see healing options that enable combat as sport on the level that 4E enabled it.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Options do not automatically mean good options. The healing options given in the packets were arbitrary and rather lame. I'd like to see healing options that enable combat as sport on the level that 4E enabled it.

I would think the HD mechanic thety were talking about would be increibly easy to turn into 4E style healing.

 

[Blackwarder]

Options do not automatically mean good options. The healing options given in the packets were arbitrary and rather lame. I'd like to see healing options that enable combat as sport on the level that 4E enabled it.

That the would be in the realm of a complete rules module, not that hard IMO to do but it will be bigger than an optional pharagraph. As I've said in the post you quoted.

Warder

 

[Ratskinner]

Possibly. I'd have said Aragorn certainly. Tanis from Dragonlance, Croaker from the Gray Company, Liu Bei from Rot3K, King Arthur, Jason and Nestor from Greek myth, Sharpe, and others. It's certainly a longer list than the people who can be identified as Clerics.

Speaking more broadly than the immediate "Name a Warlord" problem. I think the problem with these discussions is that they are just about all subject to so much subjective interpretation. Even the most prominent characters in fiction rarely give us enough material with which to clearly judge their class in the modern era with large numbers of classes. (I can't even tell you how many write-ups for Gandalf I've seen with classes from Wizard, Druid, Cleric, Bard, and now Warlord(!?). Those DM-mouthpiece characters are always hard to quantify.)

Particularly amusing in your list is Aragorn, who is so much the model for the old-school Ranger that the class is derogatorily referred to as "the Aragorn". I'm a big fan of Black Company, and I gotta say, Croaker as a 4e-style warlord is a big stretch for me.

I mean, you can't just go looking for "characters who inspire others" because that's not exclusive to the Warlord class, nor is it generally clear in source material what exactly would be happening in mechanical terms. All of which makes this process is the very inviting to Confirmation Bias. i.e. If you go looking for Warlords, you'll find them. The same is true for (just about) any other class.

The question we're trying to address is whether those Warlord need to be a unique class. So, looking at your list, before the 4e-Warlord was around, what would you have labelled each of those characters? For how many of them would you have been thinking: "Oh gosh, he's a <whatever>, but really there's so much more! If only there was a Warlord class! Fie upon these Fighters, Rangers, and Paladins! None of them express the demonstrated leadership abilities of this character adequately!" ? I submit that the realistic answer is very near 0.