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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 6730062" data-attributes="member: 7635">Well, Tony takes credit for it, but its a common thread among many ardent proponents. A warlord can't merely heal, he must have healing as powerful and prevalent as a cleric. He must have support abilities equal to spells like Bless. In short, while it might not have a 1:1 ratio of spells to powers, it must be able to replace a cleric (like a druid or bard can) in the realm of healing and support. I question if it really needs to (since there are other ways to do support than having massive hp replacement). Magic =/= Spells. A bard's inspiration dice isn't a spell, but its "magical". The same is true for some warlock invocations, paladin lay on hands, monk "ki" abilities, or even barbarian Rage abilities. The text often suggests such things come from otherworldly origins (or at least allows for that possiblity) and the compromise Tony and I came to a bit father up opened up a "We don't know, maybe its magic" option in the flavor text of the warlord as well. I can easily argue barbarians have some "magical" element to them; the PHB outright suggests one origin of Rage is "from a communion with fierce animal spirits." which seems to imply some magical element to it. Warlords, which often times skirt the difference between magical and mundane, need at the bare minimum the same consideration. Sorry you're bored, but if your talking a "Default D&D" warlord, it has to mesh with the "Default D&D" universe. Else, you're just designing some 3PP d20 variant class. (Which is fine, but color me disinterested). Not quite. A 4e dragonborn gets his breath weapon for EVERY fight he's in; a 5e dragonborn may go 2-3 fights before short resting. The 4e encounter powers says "you get your toys every time you roll initiative" while the 5e short-rest powers say "you may not start every fight with this ability, but you'll get to use it a few times per day." They were simply spells that owe their life to 4e because they didn't exist prior to it. Much like the warlord class didn't really exist before 4e. It does highlight something that people do forget when discussing the warlord; we might get a class with that name and general concept, but it might not match the 4e depiction. They opted for the path of least resistance on several classes: assassin, illusionist, wild mage, etc. by going with a subclass. They double-diluted the warlord by making him a subclass (battlemaster) and removing his direct healing. It might not be the warlord you WANTED, nor necessarily the best version, but they did try something. In the end, they opted for an options which made few (but ardent opponents) happy. The warlord's job is NOT to be a nonmagical variant class; its job is to be a viable class in a game surrounded by magic. It takes a LOT more than a warlord class to make nonmagical viable in 5e, an entire supplement full of variant rules would probably be needed. Moreover, I want a warlord who can bring something unique to my table when I HAVE wizards, clerics, and other casters. Being a "nonmagical cleric" is the least interesting thing a warlord class should be. "I don't want a warlord whose abilities are supernatural" is equally as trivial. It really sounds less like "I want a warlord" and more like "I want a variant of D&D that isn't magic-heavy". Which is fine, but you do understand the two things are separate issues, right? THAT HAS BEEN MY POINT ALL ALONG.  Sheesh! With 0-9 spells, spell slots and spells per day? Impressive. Too bad WotC never made those variants; we might have kept trucking in 4e. It can be ignored as much as "words of creation" or "primal spirits" can be for bards and barbarians.</blockquote>

Verification