D&D 5E Purple Dragon Knight = Warlord?

[Umbran]

In 1988, there was only one ranger and bard class. In 1989, 2e released versions that weren't like the 1e ones. The ranger went from 2d8 HD to 1d10. Favored Enemy, Weapon Specialization, Magic Spell access, all of that changed. The bard was a whole new class rewritten to be playable from first level. It switched from druidic magic to wizard and its abilities were radically downsized. Third Edition's translation of both was a travesty, so much so they were both re-written for 3.5 (and by 3pp before that). In 4e, rangers lost magic and bards became full casters. Today, a bard or a ranger in every edition is different than the one in the edition before it. Yet aside from a few grognards, I don't see people demanding rangers cast wizard spells and use crystal balls or that bards have access to the full wizard and druid lists for spells, despite the fact both are in their classes DNA.

To be fair, in 1989, the internet, it communities and communication styles as we know them today didn't exist. Maybe, if they did, we'd have seen the same kind of discussion still running in 1990.

It is not fair to compare today's Ranger and Bard discussions with the Warlord discussion, insofar as ranger and bard fans are, at this point, used to the existence of different forms, and there are people who are major fans of each edition's version. The Warlord is on its first real revision. And, heck, there were at least things *called* ranger and bard in each of the later editions. There's nothing by the name in the current game. And, despite Shakespeare asking what is in a name, names have power.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Actually it's arguable that the marshall was also an incarnation of the warlord by another name in a different edition... same basic premise different implementation.

It's also arguable whether it was even really a D&D class.

Putting that aside for a moment why do you presume that the 4e warlord satisfied all fans of the warlord?

I'd love to see /more/ from the 5e Warlord than from the 4e. The 4e warlord is just a minimum 5e needs to shoot for - and hopefully surpass.

You can be a fan of something and still believe it can be improved, changed, etc.

Sure, that's why there was no edition war. No one objected to a new edition changing & improving D&D.

...Oh, wait.

to better matchup with your preferences so your argument of there being only one incarnation does not then logically lead to... every fan of the "warlord" was satisfied by the 4e implementation of the warlord...

That's exactly what it leads to. If you didn't like the only version of the class the game ever presented, you wouldn't be a fan of that class. You might like it and want /more/ from it, as well, certainly...

Totally disagree with your comparison. That feat allowed you to use inspiring word 1x a day...

And take more feats ('small' feats, remember) to swap in other exploits if you wanted to. It's just sort of dipping a toe in, but still remaining essentially whatever your other class is. A battlemaster or PDK is still very much a fighter, a tough, high-DPR multi-attacking weapon-user. A mastermind is still very much a Rogue, a sneak-attacking skill specialist.

Again you're speaking for "fans of the warlord" as if you or even those on this site are an accurate representation of the majority of warlord fans

As an actual fan of the Warlord, I don't feel too bad about that. I may be more vocal, I may be a little bit more motivated than other Warlord fans who find one or more existing 5e classes worth playing, but, at least I have an idea where we're coming from.

You mean hasn't happened for you...

We don't have a Warlord class in 5e yet, that's not a matter of opinion or perspective. It's what this whole temporary forum is about.

Man, if I had a nickel for every time I read the word "strawman" on this site....

Frequent less than legitimate use of a term doesn't invalidate legitimate use.

Anyway, you're kinda twisting my words a little, don't you think?

Not in the least, no. And, are they even your words, or are you just referencing things others have said?

Healing people in the middle of combat, at range, is a magical effect.

'Healing' in the sense of making wounds magically disappear, sure. Not what the Warlord does. Take another imaginary nickle out of petty cash.

Why would there be a need to balance sources? I understand the desire to be able to do a more "low magic" setting and campaign,

That is, indeed, one reason.

but other than that I don't see much need or use for dividing things up as coming from sources.

It shouldn't be a major issue, it's just something 4e actually did. 4e Sources were more granular, but 5e still has a distinction between magic, the supernatural not-magic of psionics, and the abilities of the handful of sub-classes without any supernatural abilities. That there are classes that primarily have magic, primarily have psionics, and don't have either at all, means that there needs to be some 5e-style balance (not much, just enough that the DM can keep each character relevant, some of the time) among those three Source-like, but not-Source divisions.

 

[ZickZak]

"Fans of warlord" wish to combine aspects of many classes that are already there. Whether or not it is possible to MC and magic/non-magic aside, I doubt they would add another class combining features of existing classes; they wish every class to have its own thing and be known for its own special feature. More than one Archetype has "Warlord" feature as well and so the only hope left is a Prestige Class.

 

[UnadvisedGoose445]

Frequent less than legitimate use of a term doesn't invalidate legitimate use.

Not in the least, no. And, are they even your words, or are you just referencing things others have said?

'Healing' in the sense of making wounds magically disappear, sure. Not what the Warlord does. Take another imaginary nickle out of petty cash.

Well.... This was highly vitriolic and seemingly unnecessary, considering the rest of the context of my post, which you decided to leave out. Good luck to you then, hope you get what you're looking for.

 

[Remathilis]

It is not fair to compare today's Ranger and Bard discussions with the Warlord discussion, insofar as ranger and bard fans are, at this point, used to the existence of different forms, and there are people who are major fans of each edition's version. The Warlord is on its first real revision. And, heck, there were at least things *called* ranger and bard in each of the later editions. There's nothing by the name in the current game. And, despite Shakespeare asking what is in a name, names have power.

I look at it like Illusionist; in 1e there was a full class with unique spells (and a unique progression) that had some overlap with the magic-user. Come 2e, it was made part of a larger Wizard subtype that allowed you to pick your school to specialize in and his unique spells become shared with the magic-user/mage. In 3e, he wasn't even a separate class but a minor option for wizards to take. 4e didn't even include one (until Essentials) and now he rests as a subclass of Wizard again. At any point, TSR/Wizards could have restored Illusionist to full-class status; given them unique spells again, updated him with new powers (perhaps mixing in elements of the shadow mage classes), but they've never have, even though illusionist was a "favored class" for gnomes in 2e and 3e despite not even being a proper class in either!

What if Warlord is following the trend of the Illusionist; a full class (out of necessity) in 4e, but come next edition, his best stuff gets given to a close relative class (fighter in this case) as an option; in 6e, the warlord functions are merged with the base fighter class somehow and eventually (like how illusionist strengthened and diversified the wizard) the warlord strengthens and diversifies the fighter. We lose a unique class (illusionist/warlord) but get a strengthened base class (wizard/fighter) out of the transition.

 

[Hussar]

I look at it like Illusionist; in 1e there was a full class with unique spells (and a unique progression) that had some overlap with the magic-user. Come 2e, it was made part of a larger Wizard subtype that allowed you to pick your school to specialize in and his unique spells become shared with the magic-user/mage. In 3e, he wasn't even a separate class but a minor option for wizards to take. 4e didn't even include one (until Essentials) and now he rests as a subclass of Wizard again. At any point, TSR/Wizards could have restored Illusionist to full-class status; given them unique spells again, updated him with new powers (perhaps mixing in elements of the shadow mage classes), but they've never have, even though illusionist was a "favored class" for gnomes in 2e and 3e despite not even being a proper class in either!

What if Warlord is following the trend of the Illusionist; a full class (out of necessity) in 4e, but come next edition, his best stuff gets given to a close relative class (fighter in this case) as an option; in 6e, the warlord functions are merged with the base fighter class somehow and eventually (like how illusionist strengthened and diversified the wizard) the warlord strengthens and diversifies the fighter. We lose a unique class (illusionist/warlord) but get a strengthened base class (wizard/fighter) out of the transition.

There's a slight difference though. Illusionists in 1e were an extremely weak class that was not very popular. Yes, yes, you in the back, I KNOW you played one, but bear with me. Illusionists were badly, badly in need of up gunning and 2e did that. And, once they did that, then tweaking things back and forth didn't seem to be a bad idea and, and this is the important part, no one complained about it. Have you seen any calls for a return to the idea of illusionists being a separate class from wizards? I can't recall any. It's certainly never been a big issue.

Granted, that might happen that we see the warlord folded into the fighter. Although, it baffles me how critics of the warlord mechanics are perfectly happy to see virtually all of the problematic warlord mechanics replicated in the Battlemaster (sans, perhaps healing) yet balk at the idea of an actual warlord class.

And, as Umbran mentioned, there is one important difference. You can still PLAY an illusionist in 5e and in every other edition of D&D. You cannot play anything called a warlord at the moment. And names and traditions are important. Good grief, look at all the hoopla in 4e over "I can't play my X", despite the fact that you could create X 99% of the time, just under a different named class. One would think that there would be a fair bit more sympathy for 4e players who want to play a class that isn't replicated in 5e. Me, I'm still kinda bummed that a "conjurer" wizard can't summon minions. My favourite 3e class doesn't exist in 5e.

And, to be honest, I'm kinda hoping I don't have to wait ten years before I can actually play a warlord in D&D again. :/

 

[I'm A Banana]

Actually it's arguable that the marshall was also an incarnation of the warlord by another name in a different edition... same basic premise different implementation.

IN FACT:

• OD&D: Fighters attracted followers when they got a castle; paladins were a subclass of fighters with healing powers
• 1e: Fighters attracted followers when they got a castle; paladins were a subclass of fighters with healing powers; cavaliers were a sub-subclass of paladins that protected their allies from mental effects
• 2e: Fighters attracted followers when they got a caste; paladins, like fighters, were a sub-class of warrior, but they had healing powers; cavaliers were a fighter kit with protective auras and the like
• 3e: Fighters...were good candidates for Leadership? Paladins were a melee class with healing powers (and better candidates for Leadership in most respects). Marshals...existed. PDK's were a PrC with inspirational powers.
• 4e: Fighters were tanks. Paladins were divine tanks. Warlords were healers.
• 5e: Fighters are warriors. Battlemasters are warriors who know neat manuevers. PDK's are warriors who inspire their allies. Paladins are beholden to an oath.

The archetype wasn't exactly invented in 4e, though that was the first time healing was decoupled from the semi-magical (and occasionally explicitly magical) abilities of paladins.

Also, just as a side discussion, aren't "sources" no longer really a thing? Why would there be a need to balance sources? I understand the desire to be able to do a more "low magic" setting and campaign, but other than that I don't see much need or use for dividing things up as coming from sources. Nothing wrong with it either, just that maybe that's why it's not a major consideration of the "balance" between them.

Taking this idea and running with it for a second, I wonder what would have to be done to the spellcasting mechanics so that they're acceptable as 4e "Powers." What is it about, say casting healing word mechanically that means that it can't be interpreted as being entirely martial in nature? I wonder how much of it is functional, practical, at-table experience and how much of it is just verbiage...

 

[Hussar]

Fear is fear, just like hp recovery is hp recovery. It doesn't matter the source (magical or natural), if a natural ability (a shout from an ally) can stir emotion enough to rouse an "unconscious" character, certainly a fear effect (which, last I checked, dragon fear wasn't magical according to some) can do the same. I'd wager any strong emotional response could as well: if inspiration can do it, why not rage? (Barbarian: use a rage to heal yourself to 1 hp). Further, why only a Purple Dragon Knight's cry? Why can't an ally shake/cry over/cajole an ally? Why not allow Persuasion instead of Medicine?

Again, your welcome to do what you want in your game, but I think you're splitting the Unconscious condition very thinly to justify the warlord healing trope, and I think it could open up a lot of weird corner cases. If you're cool with that, then shine on.

Oh, and persuasion won't work because Persuasion, the skill, only influences reactions. So, the Unconscious target now thinks nice thoughts about you, but, since he's unconscious and can't take any actions, it's no different than trying to use fear to rouse an unconscious target - won't work. The Unconscious target can't take actions. Same with Rage - it's a bonus action. Can't do it because you cannot take actions.

i'd say that, considering the level of medicine we're talking about, shaking/cajoling an ally probably is what a medicine check is to stabilise a target. Ally falls, ally holds fallen comrade shouting, "Get up! Don't you die on me" and poof, he doesn't die. The rules are completely silent on what actually happens when you stabilise a target. The target simply gains one HP after a d4 hours.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

Anyway, you're kinda twisting my words a little, don't you think? Healing people in the middle of combat, at range, is a magical effect. I mean, we can really get down to brass tacks and start arguing YET AGAIN about how you might disagree with that, and the inspirational healing thing, and yada yada, but the point is... It's a hangup for a lot of people. So much so that I'm valid in using wording like "doing magical things without magic". Whether it's possible, or appropriate in this game, is a grander argument. But my language in using that doesn't need to be twisted into a strawman, nor brushed aside as ludicrously false as it pertains to the perception of many others.

Also, just as a side discussion, aren't "sources" no longer really a thing? Why would there be a need to balance sources? I understand the desire to be able to do a more "low magic" setting and campaign, but other than that I don't see much need or use for dividing things up as coming from sources. Nothing wrong with it either, just that maybe that's why it's not a major consideration of the "balance" between them.

SHouldn't you add an IMO after "Healing people in the middle of combat, at range, is a magical effect". I certainly don't think it is. How does a Battlemaster grant temporary HP? If you can only grant HP at range through magic, does that mean that Rally is a magical effect? Sure, it's temp HP, but, at the end of the day, it's STILL adding to your HP pool. Or is the fact that the HP go away after a long rest somehow make them non-magical? The Healer feat, true can't be used at range, but, it certainly grants HP without magic at all.

The "magical effect" interpretation relies on a specific interpretation of HP that is not supported in 5e HP are absolutely not meat until you hit half your HP in damage. The first half of your HP is not meat at all. That's specifically true in 5e. So, why can't a warlord heal at least half your HP since at least half your HP have nothing to do with meat? Why do I need magic to replenish your invisible HP?

 

[UnadvisedGoose445]

SHouldn't you add an IMO after "Healing people in the middle of combat, at range, is a magical effect". I certainly don't think it is. How does a Battlemaster grant temporary HP? If you can only grant HP at range through magic, does that mean that Rally is a magical effect? Sure, it's temp HP, but, at the end of the day, it's STILL adding to your HP pool. Or is the fact that the HP go away after a long rest somehow make them non-magical? The Healer feat, true can't be used at range, but, it certainly grants HP without magic at all.

The "magical effect" interpretation relies on a specific interpretation of HP that is not supported in 5e HP are absolutely not meat until you hit half your HP in damage. The first half of your HP is not meat at all. That's specifically true in 5e. So, why can't a warlord heal at least half your HP since at least half your HP have nothing to do with meat? Why do I need magic to replenish your invisible HP?

It's not necessarily my opinion. That's why I didn't add that haha. But it IS the opinion of a great many people. I do happen to have an issue with inspirational healing from 0. Which is honestly why Rally is what it is. Temp HP. It's that one, very specific thing, that is a major point of contention. That's what my whole point was. It's a hang up for many.

I also pointed out in an earlier post why I love how the PDK handles this. Putting the "see or hear you" condition on the ability makes sense, and those that see HP in different ways can rule how they like on the issue of raising from 0 hp.