D&D 5E What is a Warlord [No, really, I don't know.]

[Hussar]

[MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION] - on the idea of warlord mechanics telling you how your character feels, that's only really true of one kind of warlord. In the 4e PHB, there are two different warlords - inspiring, which I assume that's the one you have an issue with, and tactical. The tactical warlord is quite different though. You don't do what he tells you to do because he is inspiring confidence in you, you do what he tells you to do because it's a good idea. It's like a coach in American football. Bill Belichick, the coach of the Patriots, has coached his team to 6 Superbowls, yet never played football at the professional level. Heck, he was a lacrosse player in college. One of the greatest coaches in professional football has never actually played at that level.

But, his players follow his ideas because they are really darn good ideas (usually ). That's what a tactical warlord is. A character that studies strategy and tactics extensively and has the personality to allow him to notice strengths and weaknesses in others. Tom Brady (the Patriots QB) is a fantastic QB. You cannot take that away from him. What Belichick does is make him a bit better by focusing on the tactical and strategic side of things.

To me, that's what a warlord is. He's someone who makes the group better.

 

[MarkB]

Man, these are just getting looong!
1) Healing is healing, restoring hit points. Bet it is in some dictionary online

4e surge-based healing is more like injury management than actual healing, because in 4e a character's state of health is a combination of their hit points and healing surges.

A character who is at full hit points, but only has a third of their healing surges left is not at full health. They're quite badly beaten up, but they've managed to tend their wounds - either through magic or conventional means - and they're ready to keep fighting. Think Bruce Willis in the third act of any Die Hard movie.

So it's perfectly legitimate to think of surge-based healing in terms of tending wounds rather than completely healing them.

 

[El Mahdi]

Yea that is like too long, I cant make myself read it really. Thanks for the effort though. I asked what is missing. Can you tell me That, or highlight if you already said so? Thx

I wouldn't think not reading someones book is rude

567 words - 1 1/2 pages of a Word document if double-spaced (3/4 of a page if not).

That's about 1/4 to 1/3 the size of a class write-up in the PHB - not counting archetypes or paths... (about 1/8 if you do)

You ask questions, but then won't read the response - giving some snarky reply as to why - and you honestly think I'm going to expend the effort to give you an answer to a follow up question?

Then when I do give an answer, albeit in response to someone else - someone who deserved the respect of a response - you reply with snark again...

Man, these are just getting looong!

BTW, that last one was 580 words (counting links) - that was a whole 13 words more. Not to mention that the part of the post that was a response to you, was just a tad over 100 words.

One paragraph and one sentence...

Your rude responses throughout all of your posts, not just that last one, is what I was referring to; and your manufactured justifications for not reading responses has ruined any credibility and good-faith you had with me as to your intentions in these discussions.

If you want to have a discussion, then you have to actually give others the respect of reading their responses. Not to mention that you can't have a discussion about the Warlord, making claims as to what you think Warlord fans want, without actually reading the posts/threads (that I've conveniently linked numerous times) that explicitly list what Warlord fans want. When you continue to do so, you're discussing in bad faith.

I have no time for someone that treats me like this - and I imagine you'll start to find others don't either if you continue this way.

 

[Tony Vargas]

[MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION] - on the idea of warlord mechanics telling you how your character feels, that's only really true of one kind of warlord. In the 4e PHB, there are two different warlords - inspiring, which I assume that's the one you have an issue with, and tactical.

But, they all had access to abilities that inspired, and some abilities critical to the support role clearly work via inspiration. So that's not an out. Also, he should no more be dictating to other players which Warlord they play than whether they get to play one at all.

About all the system can do to ameliorate that particular concern is to be sure to phrase such abilities as allowing allies to do things or gain a benefit, not imposing those things involuntarily, so a player who's not feel'n it in the inspiration department can say 'nah, use that on someone else,' and to push the issue would just waste the resource.
Aside from that it's strictly a matter of players having consideration for eachother at the table.

To me, that's what a warlord is. He's someone who makes the group better.

That's the ideal with any class that can do support well, yep.

A character who is at full hit points, ...but quite badly beaten up, ...think Bruce Willis in the third act of any Die Hard movie.

(yeah, I edited that brutally, sorry, just wanted to leave editions out of it) Even calling something like that - wounded but recovered enough strength to fight on as if fresh - 'healing' is part of the problem.

Whatever poor designer works on the Warlord should set his word processor to flag every instance of 'heal' or 'healing.'

 

[GreyLord]

Right, what Pemerton said is accurate: by default, 4e absolutely had nothing remotely like bounded accuracy, and actually codified the "treadmill" effect even more explicitly than any edition before it.

This house rule Pemerton suggests, though, probably would have worked pretty much effortlessly. There would still be a lot of magic item treadmill, but that could've also been excised with just a bit more work (the handy "assumed magic +" table in the Dark Sun 4e guide would've helped.)

I have never heard of anyone doing any of this. But then, I played all of two short-lived 4e campaigns before I moved to a Basic/3E6 home brew mashup and never looked back.

If this 4e bounded accuracy hack was actually common, that's really cool.

Actually the best way to look at it is...

5e bounded accuracy = +1 every 4 levels

4e bounded accuracy = +1 every 2 levels

EVERYONE gets the same bonus...EVERYONE maxes out at the same ability with that being +6 in 5e, and +10 in 4e. It would be +5 in 5e, except you start with a +2.

It's the same idea...but with smaller numbers in 5e.

it's not that hard to understand...really, and for the 4e guys...simplicity itself...or should be.

The big differences is that Magic items WERE baked into monster stats (unlike 5e), and the accuracy applied to EVERYTHING...rather than just what you were proficient in.

Otherwise, it's the same system basically. Hilariously, because WotC advertised it and marketed it different...it's all good now...whilst 4e was the big bad guy.

 

[GreyLord]

I think the most disappointing thing I've seen with new classes has nothing to do with Warlords. I enjoy dragonlance and 4e seemed perfect for it. That they didn't come out with the Knights of Solamnia class with options for Crown, Sword and Rose, Knights of Takhisis with Lily, Skull and thorn, Wizards of High Sorcery with White, Red and Black...was disappointing.

I understand their reasonings as why they didn't do that...but I would have enjoyed it even if no one else did.

I think these same things would work GREAT with 5e...(and if they had a Warlord class, perhaps some of them would work well in that)...with archtypes in regards to the Knights and Wizards (and Clerics) I think it would be awesome.

Heck...they basically should already have the Kender ready to go...right!?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I think the most disappointing thing I've seen with new classes has nothing to do with Warlords. I enjoy dragonlance and 4e seemed perfect for it. That they didn't come out with the Knights of Solamnia class with options for Crown, Sword and Rose, Knights of Takhisis with Lily, Skull and thorn, Wizards of High Sorcery with White, Red and Black...was disappointing.

I understand their reasonings as why they didn't do that...but I would have enjoyed it even if no one else did.

I think these same things would work GREAT with 5e...(and if they had a Warlord class, perhaps some of them would work well in that)...with archtypes in regards to the Knights and Wizards (and Clerics) I think it would be awesome.

Heck...they basically should already have the Kender ready to go...right!?

Does this mean you've seen the SCAG? Does the Purple Dragon Knight do anything kinda-sorta Warlordy?

Edit: Nevermind, I see it won't launch until November. Still, there is hope--not a lot of hope, mind, but hope nonetheless--that the PDK will be where the devs take another shot at Warlording the Fighter.

 

[pemerton]

Could someone elucidate for me the need for the class to be non-magical?

This was addressed pretty well by [MENTION=6749563]JohnLynch[/MENTION]. The warlord is a non-magical character. Much like the rogue or fighter. The warlord is not a magician or miracle-worker.

It seems like the cleric has pretty much everything Warlord fans want, except that it's magical. Could the Cleric just be re-fluffed as "Inspirational" rather than magical? (After all, when I describe what I don't like about the Warlord the response is, "Oh, that's easy. Just re-fluff it however you want.")

I completely agree with you there, but a lot of people do suggest that those who object to the Warlord can reflavor it. So I assume those people don't object to re-flavoring.

Generally, I understand "reflavouring" meaning to change the flavour text but leave the mechanics intact.

This means that there are limits to reflavouring. You can't reflavour a fireball as a cold ball, for instance, because mechanically it delivers fire damage rather than ice damage.

In the case of the cleric, the bulk of the character's abilities are mechanically defined as spells: they have to be prepared (in spell slots), they have casting components, they are defeated by an anti-magic field, etc.

That is the obstacle to reflavouring the cleric as non-magical.

Conversely, nothing would stop anyone reflavouring a warlord as magical, because where using the spell mechanics is a sufficient condition for an ability in 5e being magical, it is not necessary. 5e uses a plethora of mechanics for representing supernatural ability (not just spells but all sorts of other class features like invocations, channel divinity, etc). Nothing about a 5e warlord's mechanics would get in the way of interpreting the abilities as supernatural.

 

[ZickZak]

you honestly think I'm going to expend the effort to give you an answer to a follow up question?

Not to mention that you can't have a discussion about the Warlord, making claims as to what you think Warlord fans want, without actually reading the posts/threads (that I've conveniently linked numerous times) that explicitly list what Warlord fans want.

So... You are mad because I didn't read it. "Man, so many ppl in this Walmart, THEIR FAULT!"

I don't know what fans want. That is why I asked you. Instead you wrote 600 words when 30 was needed and I bet there is no answer anyway.
I don't care about warlords. What I care about is to know how is it not buildable and so far when I ask what you ppl miss it's always "It's about concept man! Like there is no concept! The conceptual Warlord had a concept for a reason! ...unlike these MC without a concept."

 

[ZickZak]

So it's perfectly legitimate to think of surge-based healing in terms of tending wounds rather than completely healing them.

Yea but the difference in the core mechanics is pretty much none, whether it is Healing Word, Inspiring Word, Ardent Surge... It just looks different, potentially has a different sources, but it restores HP in one way or another. So I think calling the caster healer is ok.