Why we need Warlords in D&DN

[LurkAway]

No, she was the leader of the half of the companions that found the Dragon Orb in Icewall and killed Feal-Thas. She was the one who used the silver dragons' ice breath weapon to dam the Vingaard River and then use brass dragons to release it to flood the Vingaard Plains. It was Laurana who summoned up the will to control another Dragon Orb in the High Clerist's tower, something she was able to do because of her high mental stats.

That's a leader, not a Leader combat role. Any character class could do those things you describe.

 

[Nivenus]

It is interesting to me that people question the Warlord but not he cleric. How many faith healers do you know that can put limbs back on people or stuff organs back into an opened belly? A faith healer or a shaman in the bush can only do what his tricks can get away with. Making people walk temporarily, "curing" invisible things like cancer or healing people who actually weren't sick. (At least the shaman has the benefit of maybe healing someone with some herbal remedy he found in the jungle.)

The cleric is modeled after a saint or a friar from a mediaeval hagiography. Would any of you put any stock in such a story? It is divine intervention. Likewise a Warlord calls upon the immense power of personal will and fortitude, the indomitable human spirit which enables Jean Claud van Damme to endure 90 minutes of pummeling and still beat the bad guys.

The difference between the cleric and the warlord is that clerics are explicitly magical. Sure, IRL no priests have the magical wonder healing abilities of a D&D cleric but that's an acknowledged caveat from the very start. Clerics are just as magical as wizards - they just get their magic from a different source.

Warlords, however, are supposed to be non-magical. The supernatural stuff for the martial classes supposedly doesn't kick in until the late paragon or early epic tiers, but warlords have what borders on a supernatural ability at 1st level. That's the dissonance and that's why people don't question clerics the same way they do warlords.

 

[ferratus]

Well, there are also many times in the books where she encourages other party members, notably Sturm who got gloomy and defeatist for most of the book before he died.

Mostly though, Laurana was written to be a selfish and immature princess who had to grow and find her strength to be a leader. Warlord is the only class that gives support for that type of playstyle. Fighters as a rule, use charisma and intelligence as a dump stat because they need those scores for Str, Dex, Con to be effective. There is no mechanical reward for fighter classes in the D&D systems for choosing your mental skills over your physical ones outside of the Warlord class.

 

[LurkAway]

Mostly though, Laurana was written to be a selfish and immature princess who had to grow and find her strength to be a leader. Warlord is the only class that gives support for that type of playstyle.

Since when was it mainstream to choose a class that supports a personality growth like that?? Plus dragonlance rules came before 4E, so Laura was some sort of class that wasn't a warlord and she did just fine that way.

 

[ferratus]

Since when was it mainstream to choose a class that supports a personality growth like that?? Plus dragonlance rules came before 4E, so Laura was some sort of class that wasn't a warlord and she did just fine that way.

She did just fine because she was a novel character, not because she was well supported in archetype by the AD&D rules.

 

[Dragonhelm]

Ironically, upthread, someone else specifically said that Tanis was a leader (of the party) but not a Leader (metagame), so thus NOT a warlord. And Knights of the Rose were mechanically knight classes. Sturm Brightblade was glum and uninspiring, so not a warlord. There are no warlord IMO in standard fantasy fiction. I think the warlord concept is shoehorned in after the fact, because preceding 4E, they were never thought as such and no class powers supporting warlordness.

I had wanted to list Tanis. However, I had not read the original Dragonlance trilogy in years and could not recall for sure if he and/or Sturm fit the Warlord (pushing them when they were tired and thought could not continue, giving the tactical orders in combat(i.e, buffing their attacks), etc.)

Okay, so let's talk Tanis. It's true, this is after the fact. However, the skirmishing warlord (the archer one) makes a good fit for him. You could just as easily stat him up with levels of fighter and possibly ranger (so long as you don't get into primal powers).

Sturm would not be a warlord. He was more of a fighter (knight).

The Knights of Solamnia could be represented by prestige classes/paragon paths/themes/kits/etc. However, at their core, they really are fighter, paladin, and warlord.

 

[LurkAway]

She did just fine because she was a novel character, not because she was well supported in archetype by the AD&D rules.

And how does applying a 4E warlord class suit her any better? From 1st level, Laurana was not fulfilling a Leader Combat role whatsoever or using any warlord powers. Afterwards, you've provided some examples of diplomacy and acts of valor that could be accomplished by any class. I don't see warlords earning legitimacy by shoehorning a warlord metagame construct on a character that doesn't need or ask for it or even support it very well.

 

[Greg K]

The cleric is modeled after a saint or a friar from a mediaeval hagiography. Would any of you put any stock in such a story? It is divine intervention.

In D&D, spells= divine intervention. So in a D&D world where magic, actually, exists, priests can heal and reliably? Yes, I put stock in priests healing.

Accepting magical healing in a world where magic exists does not mean that I have to accept, John McClaine or Jean Claude Van Dam style getting their ass kicked for 90 minutes and, suddenly, ignoring injuries in the game . It, definitely, doesn't mean that I have to accept someone making dying rolls or losing negative hit points suddenly being brought back fully functional by someone shouting words at the them

Now, can accept them? It depends on how they are handled. A hero point for a dying character to get one last action before dying or passing back out. Sure. Spending a hero point to stop dying and stabilize? yes. Spending a hero point to regain consciousness, but they are not making dying checks? yes, but I want them feeling some effect. Gaining temporary hit point due to a second wind while you are still conscious? Sure as long as their various degrees of fatigue and exhaustion penalties for hit point loss .

 

[Nivenus]

Alternatively, I wouldn't mind having separate mechanics for hit points and fatigue. It's probably too complex for a core system, but I think having separate tracks for how much it takes to kill you and how much it takes to drain you of your will and ability to fight were separate tracks might help alleviate some of the ambiguity regarding hit points.

In theory, warlords could restore stamina/fatigue (with inspiration) and clerics heal hit points (with divine magic).

 

[Greg K]

The Knights of Solamnia could be represented by prestige classes/paragon paths/themes/kits/etc. However, at their core, they really are fighter, paladin, and warlord.

As a DM an player, I, generally, don't like PrCs, paragon paths or epic destinies. Anything that avoids them is good, in my opinion- especially, the latter two as they should not be a mandatory component in my opinion.