Why we need Warlords in D&DN

[Aldarc]

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.

That doesn't work, because many loved Warlord precisely because they are mundanes. Removing that from warlords does not make it a compromise solution.

 

[ferratus]

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.

I hate PrCs and paragon paths more than epic destinies, but I'm with you. No place for that in the core rules if you want to reduce complexity and satisfy all the fans.

Besides, PrC's are just for players that want to powergame anyway.

 

[SlyDoubt]

Good thread man. I agree that having the balls to move away from just using the cleric for any and all healing was great.

I think they had the will to do that because they designed the game around roles, not specific classes. from there it was just a matter of fitting different styles and themes into each role.

It works. They just need to make sure that classes, or skills, or feats, or whatever it is the next edition uses to define a character most actually gives that character a unique spot.

This to me was the pitfall of 4E. The classes don't really feel very special. The roles feel like the actual concern, with classes being basically "do you want to heal using the power of a god, using your leadership qualities, using the power of nature, using the power of arcane knowledge, using the power of psionics, etc."

you're doing the same stuff it just looks and sounds different. they need to push class distinctions further while allowing bleed between classes similar to what they did in 4E. 4E was half way there and that's great but they need to push it further.

 

[Greg K]

I hate PrCs and paragon paths more than epic destinies, but I'm with you. No place for that in the core rules if you want to reduce complexity and satisfy all the fans.

Besides, PrC's are just for players that want to powergame anyway.

Lol. nah. In most cases, I find PrCs or relying on multi-classing often to be hoop jumping for concepts that are viable from the start. In others, I find them lame. However, there are some instances where I do find them useful (the bard, ollave, Druid), certain secret societies, certain orders (thinking about it, the Knight orders from Dragonlance would fit.) Generally, however, I prefer UA style class variants and a few extra broad classes if using D&D 3e before multiclassing and Prcs.

 

[SensoryThought]

Dragonlance helped bring me into D&D and I remember those books with fondness.

If warlords existed back then, I feel Tanis probably would have been written more Warlordy.

 

[pemerton]

The difference between the cleric and the warlord is that clerics are explicitly magical.

<snip>

Warlords, however, are supposed to be non-magical.

From my point of view, though, a world with magical priests can also contain heroic warlords - heroic figures whose mere presence on the battlefield inspires their fellows to otherwise impossible effort.

In literary terms, I'm thinking of the significance of Aragorn on the battlefields of LotR - it's not just that he is a skilled fighter (he is) but that he lifts the hearts of men. There is also the scene in the 1981 Excalibur movie when Lancelot returns in the final battle, and Arthur's soldiers are inspired to redouble their efforts.

Now because these are fictions, and not games, there is naturally a blurring between what, in D&D, might be paladin class features or warlord class features. Because in these essentially Christian romances, there is no real distinction between a heroic presence and a divinely-inspired heroic presence.

But the game rules of D&D do draw that distinction. And if the game forces us to make all these sorts of inspiring figures paladins, while still permitting the option of non-paladin fighters, then it is ruling out a certain sort of fictional possibility. All non-paladin warriors become, essentially, modernist pulp-style warriors. More romantic warriors are excluded.

 

[pemerton]

If for some reason the 5e designers decide that real hp healing is unacceptable for people wthe pacing of the game is much better if the Warlord can get you back on your feet instead of just delivering a St. Crispin's day speech before the battle (though they definitely need to do that too).

Agreed that both are important.

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

Except presumably that kills off the lazy warlord.

Temporary hp is no substitute for the permanent healing of a cleric

This is true in AD&D. But in 4e, I'm not sure it's as clear-cut - provided the buff from the temp hp is enough to keep a PC up during the fight, they can spend their own surges in a short rest to actually "heal".

See upthread. It's not about me playing the warlord. It's about another player playing a mundane warlord.

Wouldn't these sorts of flavouring issues normally be a group rather than an individual matter? And at a tournament/organised play event, presumably you're already prepared to coping with strangers' varied approaches to the game.

 

[ferratus]

Except presumably that kills off the lazy warlord.

A minor sacrifice in the scheme of things I would say.

This is true in AD&D. But in 4e, I'm not sure it's as clear-cut - provided the buff from the temp hp is enough to keep a PC up during the fight, they can spend their own surges in a short rest to actually "heal".

I don't have much confidence in the survival of healing surges going into 5e. If people hate inspiring word, you know they hate healing surges 10x as much. Only magic and and two weeks bed rest are enough to recover from near mortal injuries. For "realism".

 

[Aldarc]

A minor sacrifice in the scheme of things I would say.

A minor sacrifice? When it's something lauded?

I don't have much confidence in the survival of healing surges going into 5e. If people hate inspiring word, you know they hate healing surges 10x as much. Only magic and and two weeks bed rest are enough to recover from near mortal injuries. For realism.

Will there be anything included from 4e left in D&D Next at this rate?

 

[Greg K]

Will there be anything included from 4e left in D&D Next at this rate?

My hopes to keep
1. No level drain
2. No 3e XP costs
3. Toning down the spellcasters
4. Races
a. Removing non-biological aspects of race (only doing it fully) and making them feats, talents
b. Elf/Eladrin split (not necessarily keeping Fey Step
5. Classes
a. Rangers: Non spellcasting
b. Shaman as a class
c. Warlord (tweak healing to differentiate between magical and magical but I like the concept)
6. Sample Builds (I felt in 3e that they should have more examples of customizing the different classes using Unearthed Arcana type variants in the PHB and DMG and in the class)
7. More Hit points at first level
8. No con bonus per level to hit points
9.Heroic Tier Multi-classing
10. Magic Missile requiring a hit roll
11. Death and Dying Save, but I prefer how it worked in 3e Unearthed Arcana
12. Feywild
13. More cool things for fighters to do (But I prefer the Book of Iron Might maneuvers system so I would like to something closer to it and make fighters best at using it)
14. Background/Themes; I liked d20Modern Occupations and wanted them in D&D.

In theory:
Second Wind
Rituals: but I would rather them be for things like Speak with Dead/demons/angels/spirits, Raise Dead, Exorcisms, Summoning Extradimensional Creatures (Demons, Devils, Spirits, Elementals), Banishing. I would also like to see them require a skill check and have consequences for failure.