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
Warlording the fighter
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="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6671451" data-attributes="member: 996"><p>I know, I pointed that out, above. The Warlord doesn't exist yet, so it can't be part of the Standard Game. It's like any other potential opt-in module that way. Different opt-in modules don't really need to be compatible with eachother the way opt-in modules need to be compatible with (or at least change in a feasible way) elements of the Standard Game.</p><p></p><p>So if you're opting into more 'realistic' hps, you wouldn't also opt into the Warlord, at least, not without modding it. You'd probably also have to modify the Fighter's Second Wind to make it fit that vision of hps.</p><p></p><p>Worrying about how a Warlord might impact such a campaign is like worrying about how variations on the Cleric might impact a Dark Sun campaign. </p><p></p><p>It's a non-issue. </p><p></p><p>Conversely, designing the Warlord so that it worked specifically with pre-existing opt-in module, like the slow-healing modules or the 'tactical' module would also be a mistake. The only sensible way to prioritize how optional material works, is that it work smoothly when added to the standard game first and foremost. How well it works with antithetical modules (how well will spellpoints work in a no-magic campaign?) is the lowest possible priority. Lower even than class balance in 5e.</p><p></p><p> If it had been a PH class, sure, you'd want an alternative. Still, the PH Fighter isn't fully compliant with the implications of those variants, either - clearly, if you want to vary what hps mean that much, you need to be willing to do at least a little work, or ban a few things.</p><p></p><p> I just want something that's worthy and recognizeable as the Warlord and gives as similar a play experience as you can wring from 5e. 5e's design philosophy is to design around the class concept, not to design around a formal 'leader' or informal "like a Cleric" or 'healer' role. So, that doesn't mean 'healing' like a Cleric, but it does mean standing up fallen allies in the heat of battle, which requires a hp-restoration mechanic. And, yes, of course it means doing the few, vestigial, vaguely warlord-like things the Battlemaster can do far better than the Battlemaster could hope to do them (though not while multi-attacking for potentially broken DPR like a Battlemaster - quite possibly, instead of attacking, at all, really). Much like how a Wizard can expect to be a much, much better spellcaster than an Arcane Trickster.</p><p></p><p>Complaining that any ballpark Warlord ideas might be too powerful compared to the Cleric or Bard - Full Casters, FCOL - is really jumping the gun. I mean, how /could/ a Warlord be OP compared to a caster with loads of cool tricks like the Bard, let alone a traditionally Tier 1 class like the Cleric? Has anything even close to the breadth of Clerical spell casting even been remotely alluded to? No! It's a tad laughable, as a concern, really. And, it's the kind of thing that'd be hammered out in playtesting, anyway.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I would agree, in general, but 5e didn't go that way. In any case, nothing in this discussion has gotten very close to that. There's nothing inherently imbalancing about restoring hps, for instance - lots of classes do quite a lot of it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6671451, member: 996"] I know, I pointed that out, above. The Warlord doesn't exist yet, so it can't be part of the Standard Game. It's like any other potential opt-in module that way. Different opt-in modules don't really need to be compatible with eachother the way opt-in modules need to be compatible with (or at least change in a feasible way) elements of the Standard Game. So if you're opting into more 'realistic' hps, you wouldn't also opt into the Warlord, at least, not without modding it. You'd probably also have to modify the Fighter's Second Wind to make it fit that vision of hps. Worrying about how a Warlord might impact such a campaign is like worrying about how variations on the Cleric might impact a Dark Sun campaign. It's a non-issue. Conversely, designing the Warlord so that it worked specifically with pre-existing opt-in module, like the slow-healing modules or the 'tactical' module would also be a mistake. The only sensible way to prioritize how optional material works, is that it work smoothly when added to the standard game first and foremost. How well it works with antithetical modules (how well will spellpoints work in a no-magic campaign?) is the lowest possible priority. Lower even than class balance in 5e. If it had been a PH class, sure, you'd want an alternative. Still, the PH Fighter isn't fully compliant with the implications of those variants, either - clearly, if you want to vary what hps mean that much, you need to be willing to do at least a little work, or ban a few things. I just want something that's worthy and recognizeable as the Warlord and gives as similar a play experience as you can wring from 5e. 5e's design philosophy is to design around the class concept, not to design around a formal 'leader' or informal "like a Cleric" or 'healer' role. So, that doesn't mean 'healing' like a Cleric, but it does mean standing up fallen allies in the heat of battle, which requires a hp-restoration mechanic. And, yes, of course it means doing the few, vestigial, vaguely warlord-like things the Battlemaster can do far better than the Battlemaster could hope to do them (though not while multi-attacking for potentially broken DPR like a Battlemaster - quite possibly, instead of attacking, at all, really). Much like how a Wizard can expect to be a much, much better spellcaster than an Arcane Trickster. Complaining that any ballpark Warlord ideas might be too powerful compared to the Cleric or Bard - Full Casters, FCOL - is really jumping the gun. I mean, how /could/ a Warlord be OP compared to a caster with loads of cool tricks like the Bard, let alone a traditionally Tier 1 class like the Cleric? Has anything even close to the breadth of Clerical spell casting even been remotely alluded to? No! It's a tad laughable, as a concern, really. And, it's the kind of thing that'd be hammered out in playtesting, anyway. I would agree, in general, but 5e didn't go that way. In any case, nothing in this discussion has gotten very close to that. There's nothing inherently imbalancing about restoring hps, for instance - lots of classes do quite a lot of it. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Warlording the fighter
Top