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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="GX.Sigma" data-source="post: 6102839" data-attributes="member: 6690511">As far as I can tell, the whole point of the Warlord in 4e was that you need a healer, so here's a non-magic class that is a healer. In 5e, I don't want to need a healer, so I really see no need for the Warlord to heal--or even to exist.My real problem is, if you have this morale-boosting inspiration modeled as hit point recovery, then every leader-type has to be modeled as a healer. The hobgoblin warlord has to restore hit points to his soldiers. Genghis Khan has to restore hit points to his archers. Cyclops has to restore hit points to Wolverine. William Wallace has to restore hit points to his warriors. When I think of characters in history and fiction I'd call "warlords," none of them match up with what the Warlord class wants to do.When you make something a class, you're not just saying "Players can play as this class." You're also saying "This is a world where this class exists." If you have a class that is defined as "leader guy," that implies that every leader guy has to be a member of that class. It just has weird implications for the world.Thus, it would only really work for me if the Warlord were defined as exceptional--not every sergeant or general is going to be a member of the Warlord class. To be so inspiring as to restore hit points requires an uncanny gift that very few have: not just being very charismatic, but having an almost supernatural talent that must be cultivated at the expense of all others. (See the Bard Warlord from that other thread.)In the end, though, I could just do all that defining myself. So I guess I wouldn't be too upset if the standard game had a Warlord class who could heal. I'd just be grumpy about it.</blockquote>

Verification