Why we need Warlords in D&DN

[trancejeremy]

The thing is though, to me the Warlord is basically the answer to a problem that didn't really exist, other than people who are just hung up on a cleric being a "cleric".

It was originally pretty much a fighting orientated class that could also heal. Which seems to be what the Warlord is.

The 1st edition PHB describes it as being basically like the medieval fighting orders, like the Templars or Hospitallers.

If anything, I think the problem is there isn't a non-fighting divine casting class. There should be something like a Priest or even a Witch.

That way you could make the Clerics more warlike, like being able to use sword (I mean one of the models for the Cleric, imho, Archbishop Turpin from the Song of Roland, had a magical sword)

 

[Vayden]

The thing is though, to me the Warlord is basically the answer to a problem that didn't really exist, other than people who are just hung up on a cleric being a "cleric".

It was originally pretty much a fighting orientated class that could also heal. Which seems to be what the Warlord is.

The 1st edition PHB describes it as being basically like the medieval fighting orders, like the Templars or Hospitallers.

There's been a lot of time and pop culture gone by since then. Cleric is pretty firmly set in most people's consciousness with glowing spheres of white light surrounding their hands. Even Paladin is more aligned with the 1e cleric than Cleric is now.

 

[mlund]

The Warlord is a must-include. He gives you a healing option even if you go with a low-to-no-magic setting. He represents how good inspiration and instruction can allow combatants to struggle on past what they believed was their limits. Intimidation, inspiration, and wise instruction can all increase a combatant's ability to avoid a fatal blow in combat.

IIRC, the idea of Hit Points as Physical Damage was dead in 1st Edition with the explanation that high-level fighter could not sustain the same amount of physical injury it would take to kill "4 large warhorses!" It really regained prominence with the original Dragonlance Trilogy, though. The main plot-device was that only Divine Magic could provide True Healing and the gods were gone so anyone claiming to have the power to spontaneously heal was obviously a charlatan.

Despite how many of us love Krynn it's not a good core model for D&D. We've got Druids and Rangers in AD&D dropping healing without gods. In 3rd Edition bards got their own spell lists with healing on them too. In 4E you have bards, druids, clerics, and now warlords. They all represent different ways of increasing survivability in the field.

- Marty Lund

 

[mach1.9pants]

Warlord work much better if you stick with Hit Points (very sacred cow) and lose the word 'healing'. Just don't call it healing cos that implies actual injury.
HP can stay as a vague mix of physical, endurance, luck, skill and recovery of HPs needs a new name.
Done

 

[Spatula]

The thing is though, to me the Warlord is basically the answer to a problem that didn't really exist, other than people who are just hung up on a cleric being a "cleric".

I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean. "No one wants to be the cleric" is an actual problem that actual people have repeatedly brought up over the years.

Divine classes in general are not very popular in the groups that I've played in. I'm trying to think if I've ever seen anyone play a paladin in three decades of playing D&D, and I don't think that I have. Having a non-divine "healer" in the game is of value to some segment of gamers.

 

[Hussar]

I too *Heart* Warlords.

I think the comment that I heard at my table that summed it up perfectly came a few sessions ago when one of the players said, "When you're playing a warlord, you're not playing one character, you're playing the entire party."

To me, that just sums it up perfectly. A character that is all about thinking tactically that can back up that thinking with his own specific abilities. Fantastic.

 

[TerraDave]

Wormwood...and the rest...the charecter that wades into the thick of combat and beats on things with his mace (or SWORD) is called a CLERIC.

I don't see why it will be any different in 5E.

 

[Vayden]

"When you're playing a warlord, you're not playing one character, you're playing the entire party."

Yep. There's an archetype of player (which definitely includes me) that constantly wants to correct the other players if they're doing something that seems tactically horrible. It's a lot easier for that type of player to not be obnoxious when instead of saying "my god, why isn't your character helping to flank the bugbear", they can say "if your character flanks the bugbear, I can give you an extra +5 to damage!".

 

[mlund]

Warlord work much better if you stick with Hit Points (very sacred cow) and lose the word 'healing'. Just don't call it healing cos that implies actual injury.

Agreed. I really want to see the name "Healing Surge" burn in a fire and get replaced with something like "Heroic Reserves" (the stuff that keeps heroic characters going that non-Heroic NPCs and Monsters don't have). Maybe "Resurgence" could become the keyword to replace "Healing" in the general context. Healing could move into things that have more lingering effects - diseases, attribute damage, maiming (I'd love to see persistent wound effects from crits, etc.).

- Marty Lund

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

I think they need to stay. Nobody is forcing anyone to use one, but they occupy a niche that seems to have struck a cord with a lot of players, 3.5 and 4e. Clarify the term healing surge to something else that more accurately reflects what it is - heroic reserves, heroic surge, whatever, and it becomes much easier to handle, thematically.