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 LIVE! 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="Jester David" data-source="post: 6738864" data-attributes="member: 37579"><p>Why should damage mitigation be built in? </p><p>Clerics are <em>the</em> healer class in D&D. They're always associated with being the healbot. But even they don't have built in healing that is mandatory.</p><p></p><p>Why should the warlord have more assumed healing than the cleric? How is the warlord healing people more essential to the tone and concept of the class than the cleric?</p><p> </p><p></p><p>"Healer" is just a quick term for the role. If I say "leader" if causes extra problems. "Healer" in the accepted MMO term.</p><p></p><p>There seems to be a strong desire for classes with varying complexity. And it's useful. I know the one time I told a replacement player they <em>had</em> to play the healer was in a game of 4e. Level 9 or so. Brand new player. Took <em>forever</em> to make his character. Essentials was out but it wasn't in the Builder, and man did that suck. </p><p></p><p></p><p>They would. Maneuvers. </p><p></p><p></p><p>The spellcasting of an eldritch knight is equal to a level one caster in terms of power and spells per day. At the same level the battlemaster gets maneuvers. WotC has decided that the battlemaster is effectively a 1/3 maneuvers class. That the two are roughly balanced against each other. </p><p></p><p>You can disagree, but you're disagreeing with WotC and I'd be very cautious about making something overtly more powerful that WotC's baseline without heavy, heavy playtesting. </p><p></p><p>So either the warlord is a full maneuver class and gets that at 1st level or a 1/2 maneuvers class like the ranger and paladin and half-casters and gets maneuvers at second level. But in that second case probably all the warlord would get at 1st level would be rallying cry, so a 1st level warlord could not do anything you would assume a warlord should be able to do. They'd be unable to do anything warlordy. </p><p></p><p></p><p>Because you shouldn't patch rules with classes. That's like fixing the DRP problem of two-weapon fighting with a whole new class. You patch rules with rules so they can help everyone, not just people with a particular class.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Didn't I already give a super easy one-sentence fix for that problem? Repeatedly. Give the warlord a class feature that says when creations have temp hp from him they're treated as being above 0? </p><p></p><p></p><p>It's different because if someone wants a high complexity damage dealer or tank right now they have an option. It may not be martial, but they can still play something. But if someone wants a low complexity healer they SOL. It's filling the needs of players who have no choice vs players who have a choice but want more options. </p><p></p><p></p><p>Because new classes add bloat to the game, and balancing them consumes a lot of resources, so they should be added very, very sparingly. And coming up with flavour for a simple leader class that doesn't make them feel tacked on is also awkward. The warlord is a leader, it has established flavour, and it's martial which has a history in the game of simplicity. It seems like a good fit. </p><p>It makes more logical sense than making it complex.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jester David, post: 6738864, member: 37579"] Why should damage mitigation be built in? Clerics are [I]the[/I] healer class in D&D. They're always associated with being the healbot. But even they don't have built in healing that is mandatory. Why should the warlord have more assumed healing than the cleric? How is the warlord healing people more essential to the tone and concept of the class than the cleric? "Healer" is just a quick term for the role. If I say "leader" if causes extra problems. "Healer" in the accepted MMO term. There seems to be a strong desire for classes with varying complexity. And it's useful. I know the one time I told a replacement player they [I]had[/I] to play the healer was in a game of 4e. Level 9 or so. Brand new player. Took [I]forever[/I] to make his character. Essentials was out but it wasn't in the Builder, and man did that suck. They would. Maneuvers. The spellcasting of an eldritch knight is equal to a level one caster in terms of power and spells per day. At the same level the battlemaster gets maneuvers. WotC has decided that the battlemaster is effectively a 1/3 maneuvers class. That the two are roughly balanced against each other. You can disagree, but you're disagreeing with WotC and I'd be very cautious about making something overtly more powerful that WotC's baseline without heavy, heavy playtesting. So either the warlord is a full maneuver class and gets that at 1st level or a 1/2 maneuvers class like the ranger and paladin and half-casters and gets maneuvers at second level. But in that second case probably all the warlord would get at 1st level would be rallying cry, so a 1st level warlord could not do anything you would assume a warlord should be able to do. They'd be unable to do anything warlordy. Because you shouldn't patch rules with classes. That's like fixing the DRP problem of two-weapon fighting with a whole new class. You patch rules with rules so they can help everyone, not just people with a particular class. Didn't I already give a super easy one-sentence fix for that problem? Repeatedly. Give the warlord a class feature that says when creations have temp hp from him they're treated as being above 0? It's different because if someone wants a high complexity damage dealer or tank right now they have an option. It may not be martial, but they can still play something. But if someone wants a low complexity healer they SOL. It's filling the needs of players who have no choice vs players who have a choice but want more options. Because new classes add bloat to the game, and balancing them consumes a lot of resources, so they should be added very, very sparingly. And coming up with flavour for a simple leader class that doesn't make them feel tacked on is also awkward. The warlord is a leader, it has established flavour, and it's martial which has a history in the game of simplicity. It seems like a good fit. It makes more logical sense than making it complex. [/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