Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
I don't actually get the opposition for the warlord... or rather the opposition to the concept.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6729055" data-attributes="member: 996"><p>Not just concepts, but play styles, as well. An all-martial party or low-/no- magic campaign, for instance, had always been problematic in D&D, and is once again so in 5e (less so, ironically, because of the 4e-isms of overnight healing, short rests, HD, feats like Ritual Caster, and the like). That's a style of play often attempted in past editions, but requiring extensive re-tooling to work at all (and I'd never seen it work /well/). In 4e, adopting such playstyles was virtually seamless. </p><p></p><p>The idea of a warrior-type - a 'martial' or 'non-caster' to put it generically or simply a typical fantasy-genre hero - being a natural leader has been with D&D for a long time. Fighters name level coming slightly earlier, at 9th, and bringing with it some low-level followers and the 'right' to claim territory and build a keep, in AD&D, 3e coming right out and saying that fighter tended to 'anchor the party' and to be party leaders (also parodied in OotS), the 3.x-adjacent Miniatures Handbook even had a highly-specialize, non-viable in typical D&D adventuring, 'Marshal' class (that was not an old-west lawman, but a European-idiom Field Officer commanding troops). Those ideas were there because they were common genre tropes, to the point of being cliched. The traditional hero was never a wizard, rarely had magical powers of any sort (might be under a curse or have a fated destiny or something), and typically either charismatic and a natural leader, or grew into leadership as part of his story arc. However, the game failed to put any of that into its mechanics. The AD&D Fighter never had a use for CHA, which was the only thing mechanic that impacted the morale and loyalty of followers, and never gained any ability to model tactical or military knowledge or talent, either. The 3e fighter, likewise, had no such abilities, no use for CHA, and too few skill points to even be good at jumping, climbing /and/ swimming (choose 2!) let alone a master tactician, had there even been such a skill in the PH, obscure attempts like the Marshal or various PrCs fared little better. </p><p></p><p>The Warlord made those sorts of concepts practical. Not only did it do that, it made them playable while side-stepping the issue of being 'party leader' - the "Leader" classes in 4e were support, they might be a 'spiritual leader' (Cleric) or 'battle leader' (Warlord) in a fluff sense, and thus help their allies with a Blessing or Encouraging Remark, but the player of a "Leader" role character didn't boos other players around. It also, seemingly unintentionally, opened up another kind of concept that had always fallen flat before: the contributing non-combatant or side-kick who doesn't seem to do much, but the party does better for their being around. Fans came up with a corner-case 'lazy' build that mostly granted actions to other characters, seeming almost like a bystander in the narrative. Folks had tried to do such characters in the past, the lower-level thief the party is keeping around for a specific task and needs to protect. It never worked well because there was no way for such a character to pull his own weight. With just the right choices you could make a 'Warlord' build fill that concept - it was a bit of a stretch, you'd have to end up with the odd maneuver where you had to actually take up a weapon and and least make the desultory attempt to hit something, but it was do-able. And it's not do-able now.</p><p></p><p>Hope that answered your question, Orlax.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6729055, member: 996"] Not just concepts, but play styles, as well. An all-martial party or low-/no- magic campaign, for instance, had always been problematic in D&D, and is once again so in 5e (less so, ironically, because of the 4e-isms of overnight healing, short rests, HD, feats like Ritual Caster, and the like). That's a style of play often attempted in past editions, but requiring extensive re-tooling to work at all (and I'd never seen it work /well/). In 4e, adopting such playstyles was virtually seamless. The idea of a warrior-type - a 'martial' or 'non-caster' to put it generically or simply a typical fantasy-genre hero - being a natural leader has been with D&D for a long time. Fighters name level coming slightly earlier, at 9th, and bringing with it some low-level followers and the 'right' to claim territory and build a keep, in AD&D, 3e coming right out and saying that fighter tended to 'anchor the party' and to be party leaders (also parodied in OotS), the 3.x-adjacent Miniatures Handbook even had a highly-specialize, non-viable in typical D&D adventuring, 'Marshal' class (that was not an old-west lawman, but a European-idiom Field Officer commanding troops). Those ideas were there because they were common genre tropes, to the point of being cliched. The traditional hero was never a wizard, rarely had magical powers of any sort (might be under a curse or have a fated destiny or something), and typically either charismatic and a natural leader, or grew into leadership as part of his story arc. However, the game failed to put any of that into its mechanics. The AD&D Fighter never had a use for CHA, which was the only thing mechanic that impacted the morale and loyalty of followers, and never gained any ability to model tactical or military knowledge or talent, either. The 3e fighter, likewise, had no such abilities, no use for CHA, and too few skill points to even be good at jumping, climbing /and/ swimming (choose 2!) let alone a master tactician, had there even been such a skill in the PH, obscure attempts like the Marshal or various PrCs fared little better. The Warlord made those sorts of concepts practical. Not only did it do that, it made them playable while side-stepping the issue of being 'party leader' - the "Leader" classes in 4e were support, they might be a 'spiritual leader' (Cleric) or 'battle leader' (Warlord) in a fluff sense, and thus help their allies with a Blessing or Encouraging Remark, but the player of a "Leader" role character didn't boos other players around. It also, seemingly unintentionally, opened up another kind of concept that had always fallen flat before: the contributing non-combatant or side-kick who doesn't seem to do much, but the party does better for their being around. Fans came up with a corner-case 'lazy' build that mostly granted actions to other characters, seeming almost like a bystander in the narrative. Folks had tried to do such characters in the past, the lower-level thief the party is keeping around for a specific task and needs to protect. It never worked well because there was no way for such a character to pull his own weight. With just the right choices you could make a 'Warlord' build fill that concept - it was a bit of a stretch, you'd have to end up with the odd maneuver where you had to actually take up a weapon and and least make the desultory attempt to hit something, but it was do-able. And it's not do-able now. Hope that answered your question, Orlax. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
I don't actually get the opposition for the warlord... or rather the opposition to the concept.
Top