Why we need Warlords in D&DN

[TrippyHippy]

Just to put a full list of what I mean (and so not to make the last post too long)...

- Barbarian (capable of self healing through survival techniques).
- Bard (capable of group healing through inspirational music).
- Cleric (capable of healing himself and others through prayer).
- Druid (capable of healing self through animalistic nature, and others through herbs and survival techniques)
- Fighter (can't heal himself without the aid of others!)
- Knight (can't heal himself without the aid of others!)
- Monk (capable of healing himself through disciplined meditation).
- Paladin (capable of healing himself and others through the power of his/her deity).
- Ranger (capable of healing himself and others through herbs and survival techniques).
- Rogue (can't heal himself without the aid of others - or he could steal potions!)
- Sorcerer (can heal himself through the power of his magical blood (spells)).
- Wizard (can heal himself and others through magic spells).
- Witch (can heal herself and others through blessings, potions, herbs and old wives tales).

So you can get some classes that can't heal, some that can heal themselves, and others that heal others too - all at different levels of competency).

 

[TrippyHippy]

Futher on the notion of a Knight Class (as opposed to 'Warlord') - you could also possibly call it The Prince (in a Machievelian sense) - but Knight might still be more functional.

The class would represent an amalgamation of ideas from the Warlord, Cavalier, Aristrocrat and others. It would be a noble class (by birth), and would recieve decent combat training (good hit, dice, armour) augmented by the powers of being a leader. These could include tactics on the battlefield (buffs) and in court intrigue (mind games and deciet). The prime stats would be Intelligence and Charisma.

This would not only possibly appeal to 4th edition fans of the Warlord, but also bring in an important archetype back into the game.

 

[Greg K]

[I think the Avenger and the Warden are WAY more D&D and should be brought over first, and I am not sure I would even want them as phb1

I, completely, disagree.

Anyway, I am for the Warlord. I think it is appropriate for a wider range of settings and more traditional fantasy archetype.

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

I, completely, disagree.

Anyway, I am for the Warlord. I think it is appropriate for a wider range of settings and more traditional fantasy archetype.

Ok, what fantasy archetype does the warlord allow OTHER than non-magical healer, that a fighter or ranger could not? I can not think of any heros in any books or movies or TV shows, or legend of yore that can be made as a warlord, but not a fighter. The healing aspect (the part a lot of us don’t like) is tacked on for the game, and is not part of the archetype.

 

[Aldarc]

- 'Leadership' should be a matter of roleplaying within the group. For example, in Lord of the Rings, Gandalf acted as a pretty decent leader....but he was a Wizard. Any Class could, theoretically, be a group leader by virtue of the way they are played and how they interact with others.

Could people stop taking the name of the 'leader' role so literally? It only shows that they do not understand the roles. It's just a way of saying a "support class that buffs, heals, and optimizes others." It says nothing about whether the 'leader' role actually leads the party or acts as its face. This is explicitly spelled out on pg.16 of the 4E PHB1:

Leaders inspire, heal, and aid the other characters in an adventuring group. Leaders have good defenses, but their strength lies in powers that protect their companions and target specific foes for the party to concentrate on.

Clerics and warlords (and other leaders) encourage and motivate their adventuring companions, but just because they fill the leader role doesn’t mean they’re necessarily a group’s spokesperson or commander. The party leader—if the group has one—might as easily be a charismatic warlock or an authoritative paladin. Leaders (the role) fulfill their function through their mechanics; party leaders are born through roleplaying.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Could people stop taking the name of the 'leader' role so literally? It only shows that they do not understand the roles. It's just a way of saying a "support class that buffs, heals, and optimizes others." It says nothing about whether the 'leader' role actually leads the party or acts as its face. This is explicitly spelled out on pg.16 of the 4E PHB1:

Well, could people who actually design the game stop naming things so badly?! Words have meaning. If the word 'Leader' in the game does not correspond with people's understanding of the word - then it is a bad design choice. Same thing with Warlord. It's not the players' fault for taking the name literally - it's the fault of the game design.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Just to put a full list of what I mean (and so not to make the last post too long)...
- Fighter (can't heal himself without the aid of others!)
- Knight (can't heal himself without the aid of others!)
- Rogue (can't heal himself without the aid of others - or he could steal potions!)


So you can get some classes that can't heal, some that can heal themselves, and others that heal others too - all at different levels of competency).

wow now I remember the rule from 3e and 3.5 (read between the lines) "Fighters can;t have nice things"

why are 2 fighters and a rouge the only ones who can;t heal themselves...heck you fave wizards and barbarians healing...but not the poor old fighter.

Ok, what fantasy archetype does the warlord allow OTHER than non-magical healer, that a fighter or ranger could not? I can not think of any heros in any books or movies or TV shows, or legend of yore that can be made as a warlord, but not a fighter. The healing aspect (the part a lot of us don’t like) is tacked on for the game, and is not part of the archetype.

um Aragorn could be a warlord just as easy as a fighter... and way easier then a ranger. King Arthur comes to mind. I will even go to modern stories and go to the Justice League and the Avengers. Batman in his own comic is played as sherlock homes or a ninja or a mix of those, but when in the JLA he is a warlord, tacticle and corradanating others to fight better. Captian America is also a warlord, inspireing and leading the charge.

infact when I got PHB1 all those years ago I thought Cap and the Bat were the insperation for the two builds.

Could people stop taking the name of the 'leader' role so literally? It only shows that they do not understand the roles. It's just a way of saying a "support class that buffs, heals, and optimizes others." It says nothing about whether the 'leader' role actually leads the party or acts as its face. This is explicitly spelled out on pg.16 of the 4E PHB1:

thank you...

 

[Aldarc]

Well, could people who actually design the game stop naming things so badly?! Words have meaning. If the worder 'Leader' in the game does not correspond with people's understanding of the word - then it is a bad design choice. Same thing with Warlock. It's not the players' fault for taking the name literally - it's the fault of the game design.

Have fun coming up with a more proactive and positive-connotative role name for "support" that does not entail the connotation "I play second fiddle to everyone else."

 

[TrippyHippy]

Have fun coming up with a more proactive and positive-connotative role name for "support" that does not entail the connotation "I play second fiddle to everyone else."

Well, my view is to scrap the roles entirely - and maybe write an essay in the book about party strategies and roles instead. If they write it in essay form (and make it optional) then the termonology could be explained as they go.

I mean they could also highlight strategies in other non-combat situations too - like how to appeal to a King in Court for aid (don't let the Dwarf speak!), but thats another issue.

The point is: Use better language, explain concepts better, and don't make them an imposition on gaming style (just a guidance).

 

[TrippyHippy]

wow now I remember the rule from 3e and 3.5 (read between the lines) "Fighters can;t have nice things"

why are 2 fighters and a rouge the only ones who can;t heal themselves...heck you fave wizards and barbarians healing...but not the poor old fighter.

Because I can't actually imagine why these classes would logically have any abilities to heal themselves - although they could buy healing potions (or steal them - Rogue) as part of their equipment before they go adventuring. Essentially, though, it would be a weakness in these Classes, and a feature of others. Same way that wearing armour and choosing weapons are class determined too.