Why we need Warlords in D&DN

[GMforPowergamers]

I also recall Aragorn (a Ranger) aiding Frodo after he had been struck with the RingWraith's blade in Lord of the Rings.

thank you I will add that to my aragon is a warlord arguement.

But your rationale for both Fighters and Rogues are very weak. Firstly, Soldiers in medieval times didn't know first aid by default, and always had to find a healer to be able to recover from their wounds.

wait I see the disconnect, if fighters are based on real life people, from a very hard time

Soldiers in medieval times

instead of there fantasy counterpart then how can wizards clerics, magic usere exsist at all? Inless that double standard

fighters can't have nice things

gets applyed?

Secondly, not all Rogues know anatomy!

but all barbarians and all rangers know witch herbs heal in all enviorments? I assumed we were still talking about makeing abilities avaliable to the class, not giving them wholesale to teh class for free... ahhhhhhh
My head is about to explode.

Like I say, as a DM I wouldn't object to healing potions (and maybe some other really minor potions, 'love') beeing freely available in a fantasy marketplace. Characters like fighters and Rogues could spend their cash on a few vials of healing potions before they set out on adventure, resourse manage, and just be mindful that they need to be nice to others if they run out!

ok so anyone can buy potions, or steal them, and everyone BUT 2 classes ALSO on top of that can heal self or others...

The only significant difference between a magic using class and fighters, is that the magic -users can make their own potions rather than buy them (where do you think they came from?), but this may require the aquisition of levels, feats and aquiring the ingredients of course.

so what about the othere characters you mentioned? the barbarian with herbeal lore, and the monk with inner energy can they use them to make potions?

 

[Aldarc]

The Warlord, however, doesn't have any such archetype to fall back on, as it was a Class contrived for a functional role only, not a thematic one.

The battlefield commander's not a common archetype? How about Julius and Augustus Caesar? I would call neither of them "fighters" in any D&D sense. They are aristocratic commanders who mostly barked orders from the back lines.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I am going to go through your list and show how it is no diffrent then my examples for fighters and rouges

- Barbarian (capable of self healing through survival techniques).

all batbatians should not be survival experts to that extent... some of them most just be foor solders for the tribe, no diffrent then the fighter for a town.

- Bard (capable of group healing through inspirational music).

wow...wait a minite in medievil times no one got healed by music

- Cleric (capable of healing himself and others through prayer).

prayer is a very hit or miss thing, sometimes people prayed even with a local priest and nothign happened

- Fighter (can't heal himself without the aid of others!)
- Knight (can't heal himself without the aid of others!)

fighters can't have nice things... got it

- Monk (capable of healing himself through disciplined meditation).

so is this meditation magic, or is it just good living, can a solder learn it, or a street rat? how about a bear nuckle boxer?

- Paladin (capable of healing himself and others through the power of his/her deity).

when did this happen in medevil europe?

- Ranger (capable of healing himself and others through herbs and survival techniques).

are these herbs and techniwues only rangers? can anyone learn them? what about if the fighter says "Hey teach me what herbs you use to heal?"

- Rogue (can't heal himself without the aid of others - or he could steal potions!)

sorry rouge to close to fighter... no nice things for you.

- 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).

but none of that works without useing fantasy... but you want realistic fighters...

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).

but you pretty much just made up your own reasons, with no internal constancy.

some classes can learn of herbs and survival tricks, others can;t some have to be based on a real world moment, some don't. Some can just wave there hands and say "I don;t need an excuse" and fighters cant have nice things...

 

[TrippyHippy]

The battlefield commander's not a common archetype? How about Julius and Augustus Caesar? I would call neither of them "fighters" in any D&D sense. They are aristocratic commanders who mostly barked orders from the back lines.

As I said, I think there is a case for including a Noble-Blooded tactical thinking class in the game, it's just I think the Warlord was poorly designed (and named!).

In the case for Julius and Augustus Caeser, they don't particularly stand out as 'healers' in any respect. They were Fighter/Polititians - which is the archetype I've been getting at with the Knight.

 

[Vayden]

Well, I'm not intending to end up in heated arguments each time - but I do think that some of the staunch defenders of 4E need to start thinking that 5E is an opportunity to engage in dialogue. At the moment, sometimes it feels like there is such entrenchment in 4E rules that the fans are as bad as those entrenched in previous editions designs.

My original point was to raise awareness of one of the features of 4e that I think is near and dear to a lot of us (4e players) and that we would very much like to see in 5e if it's truly going to be an edition for all players, not just "all the players WotC lost to Pathfinder and old-school clones". I think a lot of us are willing to engage in dialogue and gather back in awesome things from older editions that 4e threw out. But we also want to see some of the great things that made 4e awesome for us folded into the "uber-edition" as well - we don't want 4e to go down as the New Coke of D&D editions.

I'm happy to see that my call for Warlord retention has gotten a lot of love from the 4e players, though I didn't intend for it to turn into another argument about what hit points actually are.

In the spirit of detente, here is a short list of some older edition things that I would love to see re-enter the next edition (alongside the Warlord):

- The Great Wheel planar cosmology
- Vancian magic for some classes (let's also have some 4e style casters, but bring back old school wizards for those who love them)
- All 9 alignments

 

[TrippyHippy]

thank you I will add that to my aragon is a warlord arguement.

Aragorn was a Ranger. It said so in the book. He may have multiclassed later on though.

wait I see the disconnect, if fighters are based on real life people, from a very hard time instead of there fantasy counterpart then how can wizards clerics, magic usere exsist at all? Inless that double standard gets applyed?

Even based on the fantasy archetypes, Fighters don't heal themselves.

but all barbarians and all rangers know witch herbs heal in all enviorments? I assumed we were still talking about makeing abilities avaliable to the class, not giving them wholesale to teh class for free... ahhhhhhh My head is about to explode.

Barbarians and Rangers are skilled at survival. What is a more basic Survival skill than being able to heal yourself when you have been wounded? Rangers are also the types of guys that need to help others heal in the wilderness if they find them (being protectors of a sort). Healing with herbs and so on, makes perfect sense to me.

ok so anyone can buy potions, or steal them, and everyone BUT 2 classes ALSO on top of that can heal self or others...

Yep - your thinking too much in terms of gamism at the moment - but beyond that, I can't see it as any more of a hassle for Fighters and Rogues to stack up on healing potions (in a fantasy game), as it is for characters needing to purchase rations and ammunition, or for a Wizard to have to get by without armour or any decent weapons. It's just the features of a class you have to decide over.

so what about the othere characters you mentioned? the barbarian with herbeal lore, and the monk with inner energy can they use them to make potions?

Nope. Potions are made in magical laboratories, or in cauldrons, or whatnot. Not fitting with the Barbarian or Monk at all.

 

[Wormwood]

nvm

 

[TrippyHippy]

My original point was to raise awareness of one of the features of 4e that I think is near and dear to a lot of us (4e players) and that we would very much like to see in 5e if it's truly going to be an edition for all players, not just "all the players WotC lost to Pathfinder and old-school clones". I think a lot of us are willing to engage in dialogue and gather back in awesome things from older editions that 4e threw out. But we also want to see some of the great things that made 4e awesome for us folded into the "uber-edition" as well - we don't want 4e to go down as the New Coke of D&D editions.

I'm perfectly happy with all of that. But beyond this, I am not really advocating a return to 3rd edition, 4th edition or whatever. I am advocating sorting out the 5th edition rules. When I argue against defined Roles in the game, it's not a 3E/4E debate - it's simply me saying that I thought the Roles were a poorly implemented rule in and of itself. My view is, let's sort it out in the 5th edition - and if it's something that people feel passionate about - then they need to find solutions to the problems other people are having with them.

 

[Aldarc]

As I said, I think there is a case for including a Noble-Blooded tactical thinking class in the game, it's just I think the Warlord was poorly designed (and named!).

The problem is that you want the 'hammer' that was designed to 'hammer in nails' to be a 'screwdriver' and are upset that the 'hammer' was not designed 'to screw in screws' and named a 'screwdriver' to that end.

In the case for Julius and Augustus Caeser, they don't particularly stand out as 'healers' in any respect.

/facepalm. Let's go back to the official description of the 'leader' role again.

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.

Healing is mentioned only once in the context of what 'leaders' do, which pales in comparison to everything else described.

They were Fighter/Polititians - which is the archetype I've been getting at with the Knight.

They were commanders and strategists, who largely did not "fight" as a fighter does. Well what does the 'Warlord' class description itself say? Let's look (p. 143, 4E PHB1) and see if it fits.

Role: Leader. You are an inspiring commander and a
master of battle tactics.

Warlords are accomplished and competent battle leaders. Warlords stand on the front line issuing commands and bolstering their allies while leading the battle with weapon in hand. Warlords know how to rally a team to win a fight.

Your ability to lead others to victory is a direct result of your history. You could be a minor warchief looking to make a name for yourself, a pious knight- commander on leave from your militant order, a youthful noble eager to apply years of training to life outside the castle walls, a calculating mercenary cap- tain, or a courageous marshal of the borderlands who fights to protect the frontier. Regardless of your back- ground, you are a skillful warrior with an uncanny gift for leadership.

Surely in a world where wizards and clerics can call upon the magical efficacy of words, the inspiring words of mere commanders and minstrels can have similar effect?

 

[Wormwood]

Leonidas is a perfect cinematic example of a Warlord in action.