Why we need Warlords in D&DN

[ferratus]

I think that over these 10 pages, we've found that turning a Warlord into a sub-build of fighter is the compromise everyone can live with, and we're just arguing for the sake of arguing now. I think there is also a wide appetite for a character concept for those who want to be tacticians in D&D.

The issue of whether warlords can heal be solved by temporary hp and beefing him a bit so the party suffers less damage because he deals more damage. He could also grab a bit of controller so enemies are too intimidated, confused or suprised to strike. That requires less use of the undo button that is healing.

Temporary hp is no substitute for the permanent healing of a cleric, but if you have bards, wizards, and rangers pitching in on healing along with things such as "elvish medicine", alchemy, first aid and other forms of healing you should be able to get along without a cleric alright.

P.S. I would also like to speak to the comment further upthread about medieval soldiers not knowing anything about treating battlefield injuries. No. No and also no. That is extremely wrong. You don't fight in massive melees over a decade (and your family over centuries) without bothering to learn about treating injuries. While people were not blessed with our modern body of knowledge, they weren't stupid.

Now, not knowing about recovery is another barrel of fish, but it is kind of hard to know much about that when you don't know germ theory. Usually battlefield wounded were patched up alright, but ended up dying of infection.

 

[Thorgrim Sekkrhrafn]

Quoted for awesomeness. Also, I think I know why Knight will never succeed as a class name - everything you traditionally picture as a "Knight" - heavy armor, fearsome in melee, etc is pretty much already covered under "Fighter". The only thing left is chivalry, which means Knight will always be doomed to some sort of prestige class or 3rd run splatbook status.

Well, that depends. One could have the class 'Warrior' with subclasses 'Knight' and 'Barbarian' and do away with the term 'Fighter' in toto. That way, you've covered your bases and refined the concepts a bit; boiled down the archetypes. 'Warrior' would be your generic, semi-skilled fighter-type. 'Knight' would be the cavalier, steeped in chivalry, born to privilage. 'Barbarian' would be your 'uncivilised' warrior, harkening back to the Vikings or the Golden Horde for inspirations (not that either were 'uncivilised' but you get the point).

Heck, whilst you're at it, combine the 'Knight' with what we think of as a Paladin-like qualities and you can craft an analogous class sans any alignment restrictions, building a cavalier/paladin for any combination of alignments and ethos-structures.

Anyway, neither here nor there. Just musing...

 

[mlund]

Meh, just split the difference and have the Warlord use an Interrupt that negates the damage he would "heal" rather than heals you after the fact. "Duck!" or whatnot would still use whatever heroic reserves mechanic is used for healing just to make sure a party with a Cleric and a Warlord can't double-dip.

Then just have some general feats you can take if you want to go down a Combat Medic sort of theme related to your Healing skill for things like propping up our down comrades.

- Marty Lund

 

[ferratus]

Meh, just split the difference and have the Warlord use an Interrupt that negates the damage he would "heal" rather than heals you after the fact. "Duck!" or whatnot would still use whatever heroic reserves mechanic is used for healing just to make sure a party with a Cleric and a Warlord can't double-dip.

Well, that just depends if immediate interrupt breaks immersion or not. I love interupts myself, because it represents things that almost happened. But maybe a 3e loyalist can tell us if it bothers them or not.

Since I am "gamist" enough to play 4e, I find avoiding damage to be pretty much the same thing as healing. Healing is an undo button for bad attacks.

 

[LurkAway]

I have a question. Nobody AFAIK has a problem with class-specific flavor/fluff like with Warlock pacts and Avengers. So if you love Warlords, and you wanted them to be in the 5E core or just be less contentious, would you compromise or tolerate a Warlord that was fluffed in a way that was more specific but possibly more compelling for old school/3E players?

For example, I would be OK with a Lord of War class, that was a hybrid of warrior and cleric of a war god. The Lord of War is able to buff 'Get up and fight!' with divine force, and his voice rings with the power of the war god so that his commands cut through the noise and pandemonium of battle. Other classes also have access to some sort of Inspiration action, using some sort of Cha check related to the target's Will, but the Lord of War does it better and frequently. Assuming that the majority of "non-4E" players would buy into that image, would you like or accept or tolerate restricting the Lord of War class to that narrower concept, in the interest of unity and all? Or you would you prefer the more open-ended 4E Warlord, even if meant ending up in a later optional martial expansion rules?

EDIT: As per below, the Lord of War is simply a more narrowly fluffed Warlord using divine power source, not a multiclassed cleric/fighter.

 

[ferratus]

For example, I would be OK with a Lord of War class, that was a hybrid of warrior and cleric of a war god.

We already have multi-class fighter/clerics. We want a military leader of men who leads them by sheer force of his charisma and military genius.

Or you would you prefer the more open-ended 4E Warlord, even if meant ending up in a later optional martial expansion rules?

I think that everyone would be fine with reducing the amount of powers with the "healing" keyword, as long as you could get along without a healer. Most of the fun of being a warlord is commanding/bribing your fellow players and being awesome. The "Get up you son of a b***" part of inspiring word is something we don't want to lose, but as long as they get back up and fighting, I don't think anyone cares if it is "healing" or not.

 

[LurkAway]

We already have multi-class fighter/clerics. We want a military leader of men who leads them by sheer force of his charisma and military genius.

Perhaps I didn't explain properly. The rules are the same or in the spirit of the 4E warlord. It's not a fighter/cleric hybrid or multiclass. It's still the Warlord class, but fluffed as divine Lord of War. Thus no mundane Warlords.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Well, that just depends if immediate interrupt breaks immersion or not. I love interupts myself, because it represents things that almost happened. But maybe a 3e loyalist can tell us if it bothers them or not.

Well, interrupts were in 3e, too (albeit rarer).

As a person who doesn't want to spend too much time on combat, interrupts don't bother me, except when they cascade on a single action. An action shouldn't be able to be interrupted by more than one thing, and that one thing probably shouldn't require more than one die roll, IMO.

 

[Dragonhelm]

As a Dragonlance fan, the warlord is a natural archetype. They fit the world of Krynn quite well, from Tanis to the Knights of the Rose to the Dragon Highlords and beyond. In fact, I used them to differentiate the Knights of the Rose from the other two orders in the Knights of Solamnia.

Plus, I like Captain America. Who would have been an awesome Knight of the Rose.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Perhaps I didn't explain properly. The rules are the same or in the spirit of the 4E warlord. It's not a fighter/cleric hybrid or multiclass. It's still the Warlord class, but fluffed as divine Lord of War. Thus no mundane Warlords.

The fact that they are mundane is part of their appeal, to me (and presumably others). If it's just another type of cleric, why bother?

Another suggestion was made upthread asking if one fluffed as a noble lord would be ok, and honestly, I didn't like that treatment either. It's too much specific flavour tied into the concept. I would prefer to have these things approached with as little of that as possible, since it can vary so widely campaign to campaign.