D&D 5E (2014) Purple Dragon Knight = Warlord?

[I'm A Banana]

5e makes a number of assumptions around which the game is tuned, a critical one is encounter/day, which are supposed to 6-8 moderate-hard encounters per day, on average. To handle that kind of 'day' the party needs hp resources, and to handle D&D-style combats it needs in-combat hp restoration, damage mitigation, and other forms of support contributions. An all-martial party, as it stands, can't have those resources, because there are only a few martial-only sub-classes, and they're all focused on DPR as their primary in-combat contribution.

Just teasing this out as factually incorrect in one major respect: every character is capable of in-combat HP restoration and damage mitigation. Potions of Healing do the former, and there are various methods for the latter (the dodge action being probably the most prominent). Fighters, thanks to Action Surge, are capable of doing both HP restoration or damage mitigation AND dealing normal damage. Additionally, every fighter possesses Second Wind (which takes only a bonus action), and most possess a very high AC.

The "focus" of a class in 5e doesn't limit its actions to one particular activity on every turn.

And to be clear, the claim I'm making is this: if you have a party entirely made up of Champion Fighters in 5e, you'd still be within the expected power/healing/damage curve of the game.

That doesn't say much about what someone might WANT out of a warlord, or how much one might want to shore that aspect of the game up (more variety is nice!), but it does mean you might want to reconsider the mantra of "an all-martial party is inadequate." It's adequate. Adequate might not be enough, but wanting more is a different desire than wanting basic functionality.

 

[Bluenose]

Calling Bull on this.

D&D has never done low-no magic well. AD&D is lower than 3e on in terms of magical saturation, but its never did either well without extensive houseruling.

Since my days with 1e are limited, I'll use 2e as my great example. First off, as I just said it had the lowest amount of classes with no spellcasting (2/9). Second, there is no "low magic" setting in official AD&D. Dark Sun, the poster child of "low magic" in D&D, still had preservers (which suffered no penalties other than "can't lay waste to nations with my fireball like defilers can", clerics of the elemental realm, druids, templars, and EVERYONE WAS PSIONIC (either with a wild talent or the psionicist class). There were all sorts of things like life-shaped items (magic other another name) as well.

Not very "low" magic to me, and it doesn't get better from there. The majority of non-humanoid/non-animal monsters have magic (be it innately, spellcasting ability, or were created by it like undead or constructs). Every module ever was awash in it. Every setting had at least one high level wizard (most had several) and almost all of them introduced new spells, magic items, and spellcaster classes. And that was 2e.

D&D, it seems, has never tried to support nor actually supported, low magic. No magic is practically impossible without severe modifications to the ruleset and huge changes to source material (everything from monsters to math).

In that sense, 5e isn't much further off that 2e is. I mean, if your going to limit spellcasting then cutting EK/AT is as easy as cutting wizards and clerics. Unlike 3e, there is no assumption of PC crafting magic items, nor is there an assumed Christmas Tree of items needed to keep the math working (like 3e and 4e).

Which brings us back around to the thrust of this tangent; is a warlord needed to do nonmagical?

Well, 35 years of D&D before 2008 is asking that question. If you say "yes", then you agree nonmagical play was impossible before 4e. If you say "no", then you agree that a warlord is unneeded (not unwanted, but unneeded) to do nonmagical play.

I think, perhaps because you're emphasising 2e as your starting point, that you overestimate the amount of magic that was found in earlier editions. Even the PHB alone showed a large increase compared to the 1e version, especially in areas where mages and clerics had previously been lacking and in areas where they replaced purely physical skills. Combined with the NWP system and the massive expansion in spells and magic items the consequences were entirely predictable, at least at tables with GMs who bought into the paradigm. And in my experience most who didn't moved away from D&D entirely.

 

[Remathilis]

I think, perhaps because you're emphasising 2e as your starting point, that you overestimate the amount of magic that was found in earlier editions. Even the PHB alone showed a large increase compared to the 1e version, especially in areas where mages and clerics had previously been lacking and in areas where they replaced purely physical skills. Combined with the NWP system and the massive expansion in spells and magic items the consequences were entirely predictable, at least at tables with GMs who bought into the paradigm. And in my experience most who didn't moved away from D&D entirely.

Well, I only started playing in the 90's (Rules Cyclopedia ->2e) but I own a lot of 1e stuff and while the spell lists are smaller, there were still large amounts of magical treasure, locations (the Tomb of Horrors, Ravenloft, or White Plume Mountain are no where near low-magic) and foes. 1e material didn't present a low magic world as much as it presented a world of unequal magic; it wasn't evenly spread across every class, town, and item, but where it was found it was found IN ABUNDANCE. And even if you ignored the appendix-bound Bard and psionics, you still had 6/10 classes with access to magic (even if it was at name level).

Then again, I'm using a definition of low magic where there are few/no caster classes, few/no magical items, few/no strictly wondrous locations, and few/no magic-using foes and monsters. (Mix and match the fews and nos to taste). A world where you're not likely to have a magic-user on the party, find magical boots, explore the Underdark, or fight demons often. AD&D 1e was still not that world.

 

[pemerton]

In 1st ed AD&D fighters (and barbarians), assassins and thieves (and thief acrobats) do not cast spells at any level. (Though name level assassins and thieves can use scrolls.)

Paladins don't cast spells until 9th level, and rangers don't cast spells until 8th level. So for the levels at which most play takes place, these are also non-spell-using classes. (And they couldn't use scrolls - other than the protection scrolls that everyone could use - and the spells they were able to cast were comparatively low level. An 8th level ranger casting one 1st level druid spell per day is not a high magic character.)

Bards, due to their funky progression rules, spend a lot of time as non-casting fighters and thieves. Monks are non-casters, and don't ever get any overtly magical abilities (they can talk to animals and plants, and self-heal ie they are mystics).

Clerics cast spells from 1st level but have very limited attack spell options prior to 5th level (and Flame Strike).

I agree with [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] and [MENTION=49017]Bluenose[/MENTION] that there is a big difference in feel and flavour between this game, and 4e or 5e.

Also, expressing the view (i) that it would be a nice thing if WotC designed a warlord, and (ii) that the game contains the in-principle room and mechanical resources to make a warlord work, isn't demanding that WotC do anything.

 

[Hussar]

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] and [MENTION=49017]Bluenose[/MENTION]...

Slight error correction: Bards started at 2nd level. They had no spell slots at first, but gained one at 2nd level. They started with 1d4 spells (rolled randomly) and had to find more while adventuring. They also capped at 6th level magic (leading to the 2/3rds caster of 3e and 5e playtest) but his caster level = his bard level (which when paired with the rogue track was impressive). They had access to ALL wizard spells as well, rather than a unique list. (Yes, that meant magic missile and fireball).

Doing a quick Tally: Non-magical classes in PHB1:

BECMI: 4 (Fighter, Thief, Dwarf, Halfling)
1e: 4 (Fighter, Thief, Assassin, Monk*)
2e: 2 (Fighter, Thief)
3e: 4 (Barbarian, Fighter, Monk* Rogue)
4e: 4 (Fighter, Rogue, Warlord, Ranger)
5e: 4** (Barbarian, Fighter, Monk*, Rogue)

* Assuming non-magical = no spellcasting, not no-supernatural abilities.
** Of course, EK, AT, and Wo4E give spellcasting to these classes, but unlike the other classes, it is possible to remain nonmagical via the majority of their subclass choices)

So 2-4 classes per book (out of anywhere from 7-12 classes) or roughly 1/4th of the classes are "nonmagical" (BECMI is the oddball: 4/7 means the majority are nonmagical but that is skewed by classes essentially being demihuman variants of fighter). That also does mean 3/4ths are partial or total spellcasters though, meaning magic is assumed, if not encouraged.

I'm going to call shenanigans on this. True, Rangers and Paladins did in AD&D gain spells, it wasn't until 8th level - just before name level as I mentioned earlier, and after a LOT of play. You're looking at getting 1st and 2nd level spells (and not too many of them) at the most by the end of a campaign. Add to that the fact that your clerics in AD&D (1e or 2e) have a MUCH truncated spell list that includes virtually no offensive spells until about 4th or 5th level (about 7th or 9th character level) and you're not going to see a whole lot of clerical magic outside of healing and status effect removal.

Add to that you have little to no magic item creation in AD&D (yes, yes, it could be done, but, it certainly wasn't as easy as it is in 3e), and the magic items you find are overwhelmingly consumables.

Now, you could certainly jack up the magic level. You mention Tomb of Horrors or White Plume Mountain. Both Gygax modules which are seriously Monty Haul, but, besides that, both very high level modules as well. Start looking at modules like Secret of Saltmarsh, Cult of the Reptile God, Isle of Dread, or the A series modules and there aren't all that many magic items in there. It isn't until you get into the high level stuff, particularly the high level Gygax stuff, that you see very high magic. But, then again, as far as magical creatures go, remember, most critters didn't have magical effects. Again, you mention demons - something you generally don't see until name level. Drow is another example of high level monster as are Mind Flayers. Get in to the stuff you would typically meet from levels 1-9, trolls, giants, orcs and humanoids, maybe some of the lower end undead, and various giant animals, and you don't see a lot of magic.

Good grief, look at the change to dragons. Dragons in 1e might not even have any spells. By 3rd edition, every Elder Wyrm is an Archmage. Demons go from having a small handful of spell abilities to having a shopping list. On an on.

And that's my point. You could play earlier D&D as high magic. Not a problem whatsoever. Most of the magic would come from items. But, you could very easily play 1e or 2e as pretty low magic. One or two items per PC by 8th level, wizards weren't needed - fighters and fighter types were such damage kings that wizards were pretty much baggage until about 6th level. The primary source of magic in the game, at least on a session by session basis would be clerics.

Not that it had to be played this way. But, it very, very easily could. It's 3e that blew those gates wide open - bonus spells for casters, any class that gained spells gained them MUCH earlier - Paladins go from gaining a single 1st level cleric spell at 9th to gaining spells by 4th level, and gaining bonus spells for high stats. Never minding a hugely expanded spell list to choose from.

 

[Remathilis]

I'm going to call shenanigans on this. True, Rangers and Paladins did in AD&D gain spells, it wasn't until 8th level - just before name level as I mentioned earlier, and after a LOT of play. You're looking at getting 1st and 2nd level spells (and not too many of them) at the most by the end of a campaign. Add to that the fact that your clerics in AD&D (1e or 2e) have a MUCH truncated spell list that includes virtually no offensive spells until about 4th or 5th level (about 7th or 9th character level) and you're not going to see a whole lot of clerical magic outside of healing and status effect removal.

I'm sorry, I thought "low-magic" meant "classes didn't get access to spells", not "classes didn't get access to spells until high level, or the spells they got weren't blasty magic". Well by that measure, there is only one spellcasting class since clerics, druids, and illusionists didn't get access to blast magic either!

Interesting day when you learn a Paladin, Illusionist, Cleric, and Monk were a "low magic" party...

Add to that you have little to no magic item creation in AD&D (yes, yes, it could be done, but, it certainly wasn't as easy as it is in 3e), and the magic items you find are overwhelmingly consumables.

I agreed on that.

Now, you could certainly jack up the magic level. You mention Tomb of Horrors or White Plume Mountain. Both Gygax modules which are seriously Monty Haul, but, besides that, both very high level modules as well. Start looking at modules like Secret of Saltmarsh, Cult of the Reptile God, Isle of Dread, or the A series modules and there aren't all that many magic items in there. It isn't until you get into the high level stuff, particularly the high level Gygax stuff, that you see very high magic. But, then again, as far as magical creatures go, remember, most critters didn't have magical effects. Again, you mention demons - something you generally don't see until name level. Drow is another example of high level monster as are Mind Flayers. Get in to the stuff you would typically meet from levels 1-9, trolls, giants, orcs and humanoids, maybe some of the lower end undead, and various giant animals, and you don't see a lot of magic.

I mentioned them as magical LOCATIONS. Magic portals, magical traps, strange pools, etc. Not purely on the amount of treasure, but there was definitely some.

Now, lets ignore the high-level stuff for a moment: I grabbed three first-level modules I own (T1, L1, U1: Hommlet, Bone Hill, Saltmarsh) and scanned each for magical items (conveniently, they are bolded in most of them). This is what I found...

Hommlet: The least amount, but there is a half-dozen potions, an elven cloak, and Lareth's staff of striking if you best him.
Bone Hill: Most of the important NPCs (including the bugbear chieftain and several mages) have potions or +1 gear. (Rings, splitmail, or weapons)
Saltmarsh: The House has two rings +1 and platemail +1, and a couple NPCs have +1 swords.

Low magic? Well, not common (due to level and challenges faced) but certainly 4-6 items per module.

Good grief, look at the change to dragons. Dragons in 1e might not even have any spells. By 3rd edition, every Elder Wyrm is an Archmage. Demons go from having a small handful of spell abilities to having a shopping list. On an on.

And ironically, 5e dragons don't even have spells (unless the DM uses a variant to give them a handful) and demons often lack that. Guess you could say 5e dragons and demons are lower magic than AD&D ones.

And that's my point. You could play earlier D&D as high magic. Not a problem whatsoever. Most of the magic would come from items. But, you could very easily play 1e or 2e as pretty low magic. One or two items per PC by 8th level, wizards weren't needed - fighters and fighter types were such damage kings that wizards were pretty much baggage until about 6th level. The primary source of magic in the game, at least on a session by session basis would be clerics.

Oh, so low-magic equals no MAGIC-USERS/MAGES/WIZARDS, not actually "no spellcasters" or "no magic items" or "no magic-using monsters". Gotcha.

Not that it had to be played this way. But, it very, very easily could. It's 3e that blew those gates wide open - bonus spells for casters, any class that gained spells gained them MUCH earlier - Paladins go from gaining a single 1st level cleric spell at 9th to gaining spells by 4th level, and gaining bonus spells for high stats. Never minding a hugely expanded spell list to choose from.

So lets agree on this: 3e was the "Magic is King" edition and certainly not what we're striving for. But does 5e? Well, its a little higher than AD&D (due to at-will cantrips and rangers/paladins getting spells early), not quite as high as stock 4e (thanks to 4e's over-reliance on +X items to keep the math working) and nowhere near as high as 3e. Heck, 5e has been out for a year and a half already and we have a dozen new elemental spells and four new cantrips, so we aren't even facing hugely expanding spell lists.

But almost none of this proves to me you need a warlord to make nonmagical gaming viable. By your own admission, AD&D was "low magic" but still allowed Clerics, Paladins, +1 platemail at first level, potions of healing, etc. Doesn't seem like the warlord is adding much except just another choice of class.

So again, I'm not seeing a NEED to have a full warlord class. I'm seeing a DESIRE for one, but no gaping hole left open by its absence, unless AD&D suffered from the same hole (and right now, two people have told me 1e did low magic well without a warlord class, so I'm guessing it didn't).

 

[Hussar]

Interesting day when you learn a Paladin, Illusionist, Cleric, and Monk were a "low magic" party...

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?471037-Purple-Dragon-Knight-Warlord/page22#ixzz3quzJGeXM

Why would you consider that a high magic party? The paladin and monk aren't casting any spells. I would say illusionists are high magic since their effects are so flashy. Clerics, up to about 7th level cast pretty much status removal and healing. If you had an alternative means of healing, you wouldn't even need clerics.

I'd certainly call a group with two fighters, a paladin, a cleric and a monk a low magic party. Wouldn't you?

Low magic? Well, not common (due to level and challenges faced) but certainly 4-6 items per module.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?471037-Purple-Dragon-Knight-Warlord/page22#ixzz3quzpoaAH

Again, let's not forget a few things. Those modules were for 6-8 PC's. So, you're looking at one magic item per PC (most of which are consumable) for modules that are intended to take you from 1st to 3rd level. Yeah, I'd call that pretty low magic. Certainly a hell of a lot lower than we see in 3e-5e. ((Note, 4e didn't actually NEED magic items. The math for removing them is pretty simple. And you realise that it's basically +1 per tier right? That's it.))

But almost none of this proves to me you need a warlord to make nonmagical gaming viable. By your own admission, AD&D was "low magic" but still allowed Clerics, Paladins, +1 platemail at first level, potions of healing, etc. Doesn't seem like the warlord is adding much except just another choice of class.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?471037-Purple-Dragon-Knight-Warlord/page22#ixzz3qv0QYa2K

No one is asking for non-magical gaming. LOW. LOW magic gaming. Where you don't have spells being cast by every PC in the group in every single encounter. 5e is Harry Potterverse. Everyone is a caster. Unlike AD&D where your standard group of 6-8 PC's had (at least up to about 8th level) 2 casters - the cleric and the wizard. Are you honestly going to claim that AD&D defaults to high magic? Really? When the standard party uses almost no magic? Never minding the first twenty years of the hobby with OD&D and then B/E D&D where you had even less magic.

Meh, whatever dude. I want a warlord because it's the easiest, simplest way to get the style of gaming that I could get out of the box for the first twenty years of my gaming career. We've spiralled ever higher on the magic tree and I'd like at least to have the option to reduce the amount of magic in the game. Good grief, we have teleporting PALADINS in 5e. THAT'S how high magic the game has become. I'd say a +1 suit of armor doesn't really compare to the level of wahoo that 5e brings to the table.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'd certainly call a group with two fighters, a paladin, a cleric and a monk a low magic party. Wouldn't you?

Probably not. That's 3/4 characters whose special abilities aren't Charles Atlas Superpowers, so we're well into the realm of supernatural explanations for their abilities. They're MADE of magic!

Methinks we're having a problem of "low magic" not being clearly defined.

Where you don't have spells being cast by every PC in the group in every single encounter. 5e is Harry Potterverse. Everyone is a caster.

No 5e game I've played has this problem.

In one of 'em, we've got a fighter and a swashbuckler.

In another, we've got a fighter and a monk (that counts for you as non-caster, right?) and we've had a rogue/fighter before.

In a third, we've got an assassin rogue.

Casters are common in 5e, but clearly not everyone is a caster.

 

[Remathilis]

Why would you consider that a high magic party? The paladin and monk aren't casting any spells. I would say illusionists are high magic since their effects are so flashy. Clerics, up to about 7th level cast pretty much status removal and healing. If you had an alternative means of healing, you wouldn't even need clerics.

I'd certainly call a group with two fighters, a paladin, a cleric and a monk a low magic party. Wouldn't you?

Well, a paladin can heal with his touch 2 hp/level per day, is surrounded by permanent protection form evil, is immune to disease, can remove disease with a touch, and DETECT EVIL at will. But I'm sure he does all that non-magically. Monks can kill with a touch, self heal, are immune to poison and disease, and moves as fast as a horse, but thats not supernatural either. Both of these things are complete "low" magic.

Oh, apparently I have a misprinted PHB for AD&D; because mine has Clerics that cast Command (C1), Silence (C2), Hold Person (C2), Spiritual Hammer (C2), and Inflict Light/Serious Wounds (C1/C4). Nothing flashy or status removing there.

Again, let's not forget a few things. Those modules were for 6-8 PC's. So, you're looking at one magic item per PC (most of which are consumable) for modules that are intended to take you from 1st to 3rd level. Yeah, I'd call that pretty low magic. Certainly a hell of a lot lower than we see in 3e-5e. ((Note, 4e didn't actually NEED magic items. The math for removing them is pretty simple. And you realise that it's basically +1 per tier right? That's it.))

5e AL guidelines call for 1 magic item per PC, 1/2 of which is consumables (potions and scrolls). So a 6th level PC has 6 items, 3 are potions, 3 are permanent. That's fairly low magic.

Oh, and don't give me this BS 4e doesn't NEED items either; the DMG2 gave a guideline for their removal but the DEFAULT RULES insist on them: they're baked into the treasure parcels, assumed by the math, and printed in the bloody PHB. They were needed unless you house-ruled them out. Contrastly, 5e doesn't use them to balance the math at all; a fighter can go 20 levels and rarely need a magical weapon (save some powerful undead or fiends with Damage Immunity; and if the DM is using them without magical items, he's being a dick).

No one is asking for non-magical gaming. LOW. LOW magic gaming. Where you don't have spells being cast by every PC in the group in every single encounter. 5e is Harry Potterverse. Everyone is a caster. Unlike AD&D where your standard group of 6-8 PC's had (at least up to about 8th level) 2 casters - the cleric and the wizard. Are you honestly going to claim that AD&D defaults to high magic? Really? When the standard party uses almost no magic? Never minding the first twenty years of the hobby with OD&D and then B/E D&D where you had even less magic.

I'm pretty sure Tony Vargas is

The Warlord is needed for a number of reasons, for some of them, like being an adequate primary or sole source of support functions for a party (to enable an all-martial or low-/no- magic campaign, a playstyle that is not currently well-supported) that means needing to exist at 1st level, yes.

Note the words "needed" "all-martial" or "low-/no-magic". By Tony standards, OD&D is high magic, dude. Not as high as 3e, 4e, or 5e, but high none-the-less.

And Everyone is a caster? Man, my Champion, Thief, Assassin, Battlemaster, Mastermind, Frenzied Berserker, Swashbuckler, and Purple Dragon Knight got hosed. Do you think I got a misprinted PHB again?

Meh, whatever dude. I want a warlord because it's the easiest, simplest way to get the style of gaming that I could get out of the box for the first twenty years of my gaming career. We've spiralled ever higher on the magic tree and I'd like at least to have the option to reduce the amount of magic in the game. Good grief, we have teleporting PALADINS in 5e. THAT'S how high magic the game has become. I'd say a +1 suit of armor doesn't really compare to the level of wahoo that 5e brings to the table.

A does not follow B. Warlord did not exist before 4e*, therefore it is irrelevant to the style of gaming before 4e. There was no warlord is OD&D. There was no warlord in AD&D. There was no martial support/healing class before 4e. Therefore a warlord is not applicable for "the style of gaming for the first twenty years". Its relevant to one specific edition, using one subsection of rules (all martial/no magic gaming) that existed for 4-6 years about five years ago. You may think 5e has too much magic (I'm not going to disagree) but the warlord ISN'T the panacea that returns the game to AD&D. Not when you admit CLERICS are "low magic" in your opinion.

So either AD&D can't be low/no magic because it lacked a warlord or a warlord isn't needed for low/no magic. Which is it?

* Well, 3.5 marshal, but nobody really played that class, right?

 

[tuxgeo]

. . .
* Well, 3.5 marshal, but nobody really played that class, right?

Not in the Tabletop RPG, supposedly -- the 3.5E-era Marshall was a feature of the minis-based "Skirmish Game," not of the RPG itself, and it never got into the SRD as far as I know. (I just searched the "Hypertext SRD" and didn't find it.)