Why we need Warlords in D&DN

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Just a random thought: Aren't "death penalties" from being knocked to 0 kinda "video-gamey"?

I don't think the core of the next D&D edition will have wounds, and hit points will still be called hit points, even if vitality points or stamina or something like that would probably be better.

 

[LurkAway]

The Avenger is designed to be an assassin for the gods. The warlord wasn't.

Frankly, a similar argument to yours would be that the Fighter (whom the warlord closely resembles) should be a divine class because he takes enough punishment to kill 4 horses and that is unrealistic.

All PCs soak up an unrealistic amount of damage -- if you fluff hp as physical stamina equal to that of 4 horses. Any demand that standard Fighters be magical or divine in order to suspend disbelief would then apply to all/most classes (or any PCs with a double digit hp). I understand that some rpgs do have setting-based fluff to justify heroic abilities, but D&D requires a certain suspension of disbelief and consensus on what hit points means. For example, if you don't "get" why Conan survived so many over-the-top battles, you're not going to "get" why D&D heroes survive so many over-the-top battles, and probably wouldn't be playing D&D in a "realistic"/immersive way (or will prefer a gritty low-level lethal variant). So I don't see that as a choice between a divine Fighter and a divine Warlord or nothing.

You have to admit, that having the Fighter be a divine class would make him cease to be a Fighter. The same is true for the Warlord. That's the problem.

Yes, I get that, I was putting out feelers to see how much room there was for compromise on a difficult contentious issue. Ironically, I have the opposite problem -- that the 4E warlord, as written, ceases to be a warlord unless he's divine or has some other compelling cinematic and (very important) cohesive process/cause-and-effect justifying what exactly is happening beneath the combat abstractions. Hopefully to belabor the obvious, I wasn't trying to force my vision on anyone -- I was just trying to see if there was a fluff-based way to bridge the divide, is all.

 

[Hassassin]

Granted, you lose the "long term serious wound" schtick, but, honestly, I think that ship has sailed a LONG time ago. And, it's probably easier to model that sort of thing with the disease track mechanics anyway. If you go into negative HP, but make your death save, you get some long term effect that is mitigated (or possibly gets worse) using the disease track mechanics.

This is one of the things I really want to see back: persistent consequences for combat (after going down, being bloodied or whatever). You are quite correct that they don't need to be hp loss, but something should still affect more strategic play. Otherwise combats might as well be resolved using a percentile die (roll of 1 means someone dies).

We've been kicking around house rules locally to that effect since at least Dragon Age: Origins popped onto the radar. Lingering wounds from being knocked into the dying state add a nice extra bit of grit to things and discourage flirting with death just because the healer's initiative is always before yours.

Personally, I found DA:O combat very tedious. They were sometimes easy, sometimes hard, but never had real consequences. Wounds affected the game slightly, but mainly combat was just a tax on healing potions or injury kits (after you were out of potions). Depending on how those wounds can be healed, it might or might not be the same in D&D.

 

[talok55]

If the warlord is in 5e at all, I hope it is optional and nowhere near the core book. A class that non-magically talks people out of their injuries completely breaks any sense of immersion for me. I also hate the name. No longer can I say that a fighter or barbarian villain is a "warlord" without causing confusion.

I agree. It definitiely needs to be optional, not "core". The class is far too problematic, particularly for those gamers that want more immersion or just don't like 4E.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Well it sounds like, based on the latest Monte Cook column, that there isn't going to be a heck of a lot *in* core 5e. Quoth the Monte:

Imagine a game where the core essence of D&D has been distilled down to a very simple but entirely playable-in-its-right game.

I read that as, you get some basic classes, some basic races, and that's about it. No warlords or dragonborn in core, but also no broken prestige classes, or fiddly skill systems either. Having said that,

Now imagine that the game offered you modular, optional add-ons that allow you to create the character you want to play while letting the Dungeon Master create the game he or she wants to run.

It also sounds like all that stuff that we're arguing about is going to be available. And,

In this game, you play what you want to play. It’s our goal to give you the tools to do so.
...
and this sounds so crazy that you probably won't believe it right now—we're designing the game so that not every player has to choose from the same set of options. Again, imagine a game where one player has a simple character sheet that has just a few things noted on it, and the player next to him has all sorts of skills, feats, and special abilities. And yet they can still play the game together and everything remains relatively balanced. Your 1E-loving friend can play in your 3E-style game and not have to deal with all the options he or she doesn't want or need. Or vice versa. It's all up to you to decide.

It sounds crazy. It sounds impossible, but that's what they're promising.

So, by the sounds of it, like it or not, Warlords will be there. And depending on your play habits and group, you might be sitting beside one (especially if you game in public / FLGSes / cons / whathaveyou.

Judging by the attitudes displayed here, it sounds like a recipe for flipped over tables and temper tantrums, but we'll see, I guess.

PS: I actually recommend reading the whole thing before posting comments on it. http://wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120116

 

[LurkAway]

So, by the sounds of it, like it or not, Warlords will be there. And depending on your play habits and group, you might be sitting beside one

[falls to knees, hands raised to the sky, camera zooms out] NOOOOOOOoooooooooooooo!!!!!

Judging by the attitudes displayed here, it sounds like a recipe for flipped over tables and temper tantrums, but we'll see, I guess.

What do you mean?

 

[mlund]

Personally, I found DA:O combat very tedious. They were sometimes easy, sometimes hard, but never had real consequences. Wounds affected the game slightly, but mainly combat was just a tax on healing potions or injury kits (after you were out of potions). Depending on how those wounds can be healed, it might or might not be the same in D&D.

I agree completely. Nobody ever proposed throwing in "Injury Kits" or any other sort of pocket panacea. Those are definitely a video-game pacing mechanism.

Using the disease tracking mechanics or something similar makes the most sense. I also like the fact that it continues to reinforce the idea that random cleric heals don't erase serious injuries either. Hit points are abstracted survivability.

- Marty Lund

 

[MichaelSomething]

What Warlords could use is a morale systems to interact with. If a group's morale is high, they can get bonus! If it's low, it can mean bad things...

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

So, by the sounds of it, like it or not, Warlords will be there. And depending on your play habits and group, you might be sitting beside one (especially if you game in public / FLGSes / cons / whathaveyou.

Judging by the attitudes displayed here, it sounds like a recipe for flipped over tables and temper tantrums, but we'll see, I guess.

Well I would not go that far, I would prefer if they wanted a tactical guy that they give the fighter a few warlord like tricks (wolf pack tactics would make a great fighter trick). Just no magical effects.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Well I would not go that far, I would prefer if they wanted a tactical guy that they give the fighter a few warlord like tricks (wolf pack tactics would make a great fighter trick). Just no magical effects.

Who said anything about warlords having "magic"?