Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="strider13x" data-source="post: 6727875" data-attributes="member: 6701931">Wow, you are opening a can of worms by asking about the Warlord! The biggest problem with the class was folks with a limited view of Hit Points and what the term ' to hit ' actually represent in D&D. Some folks feel ' to hit ' and HP loss must represent actual physical contact ( it says the word hit after all). The Warlord class had abilities that 'healed' HP, which when you keep a narrow view of HP simply didn't make 'sense' (because a game of magical elves and beholder and such has to make sense). When you accept ' to hit ' means 'success' (or in simpler parlance ' to hit a target number ') and HP represents how you avoided or survived the successful attack, then the Warlord works. 5e (and even 4e) should have eliminated antiquated terminology such as ' to hit ' for success and failure. Then HP makes sense (read the description of HP, it even says they represent luck and divine providence which means they do not have to always represent physicality). So really the Warlord debate is about what HP means to you.Would a Warlord class work in 5e? Yes, because they already exist (i.e. Battlemaster Fighter and Valor Bard). Some would say Valor Bard uses magic, but the 'spells' mechanic could be interpreted as uses per day rather than magic (this goes for Ranger spells too). Instead of saying they are magic call them martial exploits and you get the same in game results (avoid the obvious ball of flame spells and it can work).On a final note, since we are picking at scabs here... DAMAGE ON A MISS RULZ!!!</blockquote>

Verification