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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sword of Spirit" data-source="post: 7674922" data-attributes="member: 6677017">The main problem I had with the name is that implies (in addition to the things you already mentioned) a certain degree of achievement or rank. In 4e, where you are assumed to be already heroic at 1st level, that may be doable, but in 5e where 1st level doesn't imply that level of experience, it just seems odd to call you a "warLord". I mean, you're more of a warStudent for a few levels at least.I started a topic about it over on the WotC forum before, or soon after, the first playtest came out, and the alternative name that seemed to have the most support was "captain." It doesn't totally fix the issue, but it's a bit less of a problem.Are you saying that you (and others) consider actual non-temporary healing to be an essential part of the warlord?Because that changes the issue somewhat. I haven't been addressing that topic, because it usually turns into nothing but an argument, and it's really just a matter of playstyle preference that people try to argue for logically. I'm not interested in participating in that.So if actual healing is considered an essential part of why people want a warlord (rather than simply healing-like functions in addition to their other roles), then I don't really have anything to say about the issue. I assumed that was not the case, and it was feel and general function rather than a level of detail like "must be actual regaining of hit points."That's a fair point. If warlord has to be able to do those things all the time, then you can't get that with a Battle Master fighter.I just don't see those hundreds of other maneuvers doing a lot of substantially different effects from one another.Unless they made some sort of "martial spells" for 5e, there is no way to represent that many discrete effects, without condensing them down. While I'm sure there are probably a couple more maneuvers they could make, I don't think there is a lot more room within 5e design to expand beyond that.No, but I probably would consider it an adequate replacement for assassin. (The Magic Initiate, and perhaps Ritual Caster feat is actually how I represent assassins that dabble in arcane magic like in 3e.)No disagreement here.I understand what you're saying about needing room for more extensive abilities (and I'll address that below). As far as taking away things from the fighter, is that something people consider an essential part of the warlord? They can't be almost as good at personal combat as (the other) fighters?The name is just aesthetics. If the class was enjoyable for me I'd change the name. I don't consider actual healing an essential part of the warlord. I may have underestimated how big of deal that was for warlord supporters. I'm not a warlord-hater, so edition preferences aren't relevant to my argument.Didn't 1e assassin's have what amounted to martial weapon proficiency? (I might be misremembering that.) That would be a pretty big distinction. I do disagree that it was probably the least distinctive of the "subclasses" in 1e. The 3e version expanded it in interesting ways, and I never got to see the actual specifics of the 4e version, but it seemed interesting.Just to be nitpicky, but "subclass" meant something different in AD&D anyway. Both rangers and paladins were "subclasses." It was term used, very, very, poorly. 2e cleaned up the concept when it made the class categories, and expressed it that the fighter, thief, cleric, and wizard were the most basic/standard representation of the warrior, rogue, priest, and mage categories, with the other classes being other representatives of those categories.I'll try to explain what I mean about 5e design space, design philosophy, rules coherence, etc.The 5e designers have a philosophy and some general principles they are following involving everything they have done with 5e design. It has evolved over time. They have told us some of it in articles leading up to 5e. They have given us other juicy tidbits in UA, such as the concept of "ribbons" in the Waternborne article, or the various design assumptions mentioned in the one on designing your own classes and subclasses.Other bits have to be extracted from what they have and have not done with the game, the choices they have made, and the things they have hinted at without saying.If a satisfying warlord requires:a) Actual hit point regaining healingb) Being substantially less skilled in personal combat than the "pure" fighters (Champion, Battle Master)c) A broad selection of special abilitiesd) A level of distinction from current 5e offerings similar to the level of distinction between 4e fighter and 5e fighterIt isn't going to fit in 5e's design philosophy, principles, and space, without a major revision, on par with the 3.5e Tome of Battle. I can go into more detail on the why if someone really is interested. (Healing is actually the easiest one for them to do.)So is that what people are asking for? A Tome of Battle level of expansion to accommodate a warlord?I mean, I'm not going to argue against that. I'd even take a look at it and consider using it if it were only a couple tweaks away from usable for me.But what I am saying is that it really would require that level of expansion to give all those elements to the warlord. So people asking for the warlord, conceptualized in that manner, are asking for something as expansive as a psionics handbook.That's probably going to be a hard sell for WotC.</blockquote>

Verification