Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 6671984" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Because "magic," in D&D, has a metric butt-ton of thematic and mechanical baggage that, for most Warlord fans, is entirely unwanted. Unwanted to the point of "call it magic and you defeat the whole purpose." The Warlord was fun, extremely good at its specialty (with several tools specifically geared for making it so), and completely nonmagical. The first is too subjective to really be much use as a design guide. But the other two? Most people "opposed" (note quotes) to including a distinct Warlord seem to expect steep concessions on one or the other, whereas most people calling for one feel that those two things (and fun, of course) are the only completely non-negotiable principles.To put this another way: one of the most frequently repeated joys of 4e Warlord fans was that the class finally made it possible to run a 100% no-magic party in a low- or no-magic world without ANY need for special action in the DM's part. No need to specially customize monsters, drop special items, pull any punches, or modify the healing rules. Many people specifically made mention of "ancient Greece/Rome"-inspired campaigns getting a huge boost from this, as well as those trying for a semi-historical style (e.g. no spells unless you're a servant of the Devil, for medieval Europe; no spells unless you have a captured djinni in Caliphate  Arabia, e.g. the Abassid era).</blockquote>