Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Wik" data-source="post: 6727898" data-attributes="member: 40177">To answer the questions, though:1.&nbsp; The main purpose of the warlord was to be a &quot;martial leader&quot;.&nbsp; In 4e, there were numerous &quot;power sources&quot;, such as &quot;arcane&quot;, &quot;Divine&quot;, and &quot;Martial&quot;.&nbsp; Martial power type meant the character was of this world, and that powers were not really supernatural in origin - they were powered by sheer chutzpah.&nbsp; (Arcane was magic, divine was from the gods, psionic was psychic, primal was druidic,etc).&nbsp; A &quot;leader&quot; was one of four character roles (Leader, Striker, Defender, and Controller) that dictated what a class was good at - a leader was a role that made allies better at doing stuff, and kept allies in the fight by healing lost hp.2.&nbsp; The martial leader warlord had a bunch of tactical abilities that moved allies around the battlefield, healed allies, granted buffs, and a bunch of other things.&nbsp; 3.&nbsp; The main cause of the conflict is that all of the warlord's abilities came from &quot;the real world&quot; - there was no magic involved.&nbsp; This meant that the warlord could heal allies with a word, and it was completely non-magical.&nbsp; So, even for people that acknowledged that hit points are abstract and don't represent purely physical damage (they also represent luck, fatigue, skill at arms, and the like), the warlord could be problematic in play.&nbsp; Think of it this way.&nbsp; If the GM says &quot;you got hit by a spear, but your armour stopped it from piercing your skin.&nbsp; Your arm is still a bit numb, though - you take five points of damage&quot;, the warlord could &quot;heal&quot; it by giving advice &quot;Your arm is numb?&nbsp; Use your elbow to brace it!&quot; - and the inspiration and tactical combination &quot;healed&quot; the &quot;damage&quot;.&nbsp; This is what was intended with the class - roughly speaking, of course.But it falls apart when you're knocked unconscious.&nbsp; &quot;Hey!&nbsp; You're unconscious!&nbsp; Wake up, dammit!&quot; and bang, joe bloe half-orc is awake!In play, this has an odd effect of the GM not really describing what damage is until AFTER someone heals it.&nbsp; Which can be problematic for many groups.&nbsp; Personally, I didn't have that problem.&nbsp; I liked the warlord in 4e.&nbsp; Had one in our group for a long time, and the few times I played the game I ran a Bravura Warlord that was pretty fun.&nbsp; But yeah, that's where the conflict is coming from.4.&nbsp; Another issue is that the warlord was the only class in the original 4e player's handbook that didn't come from an earlier edition - it was new to 4e.&nbsp; And a lot of people (myself included) kind of hate how 4e worked, and a lot of the things that happened when it rolled out.&nbsp; So, there's a good chunk of hate directed at the warlord because of this.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Wik, post: 6727898, member: 40177"] To answer the questions, though: 1. The main purpose of the warlord was to be a "martial leader". In 4e, there were numerous "power sources", such as "arcane", "Divine", and "Martial". Martial power type meant the character was of this world, and that powers were not really supernatural in origin - they were powered by sheer chutzpah. (Arcane was magic, divine was from the gods, psionic was psychic, primal was druidic,etc). A "leader" was one of four character roles (Leader, Striker, Defender, and Controller) that dictated what a class was good at - a leader was a role that made allies better at doing stuff, and kept allies in the fight by healing lost hp. 2. The martial leader warlord had a bunch of tactical abilities that moved allies around the battlefield, healed allies, granted buffs, and a bunch of other things. 3. The main cause of the conflict is that all of the warlord's abilities came from "the real world" - there was no magic involved. This meant that the warlord could heal allies with a word, and it was completely non-magical. So, even for people that acknowledged that hit points are abstract and don't represent purely physical damage (they also represent luck, fatigue, skill at arms, and the like), the warlord could be problematic in play. Think of it this way. If the GM says "you got hit by a spear, but your armour stopped it from piercing your skin. Your arm is still a bit numb, though - you take five points of damage", the warlord could "heal" it by giving advice "Your arm is numb? Use your elbow to brace it!" - and the inspiration and tactical combination "healed" the "damage". This is what was intended with the class - roughly speaking, of course. But it falls apart when you're knocked unconscious. "Hey! You're unconscious! Wake up, dammit!" and bang, joe bloe half-orc is awake! In play, this has an odd effect of the GM not really describing what damage is until AFTER someone heals it. Which can be problematic for many groups. Personally, I didn't have that problem. I liked the warlord in 4e. Had one in our group for a long time, and the few times I played the game I ran a Bravura Warlord that was pretty fun. But yeah, that's where the conflict is coming from. 4. Another issue is that the warlord was the only class in the original 4e player's handbook that didn't come from an earlier edition - it was new to 4e. And a lot of people (myself included) kind of hate how 4e worked, and a lot of the things that happened when it rolled out. So, there's a good chunk of hate directed at the warlord because of this. [/QUOTE]

Verification