Why we need Warlords in D&DN

[Vayden]

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.

You don't have to make roles a part of the game to include the Warlord. You just need a non-magic using class that can inspire, improve, and "heal" (where heal is defined as restoring the abstract concept called hitpoints) other characters. And you call that class the Warlord out of respect to 4e, just like you call the class that primarily focuses on heavy armor and bashing but also wields holy magic a Paladin out of respect to the edition that brought them in.

 

[Vayden]

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

Hoo! Hoo! Hoo!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pi2t58CRmbU]It's raining 300 men - YouTube[/ame]

 

[GMforPowergamers]

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

Ranger in LotR and Ranger in D&D are not the same.

[/I]Even based on the fantasy archetypes, Fighters don't heal themselves.

reallly, so no warrior in any fantasy setting ever wraps his own broken ribbs and goes on, pulls an arrow out, wraps it then forgets the injury for the rest of the story? Heck what about setting a splint on a broken leg then walking, or even running on it later? All of those examples sound perfect to me.

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.

the most basic skill and fighters and rouges can't have it

now that really gets me. Why can't my street savy theif have something you can't find more basic... how did he survive growing up on the streets:
a) he never got hurt
b) the local healer always tended the poor homeless kid
c) he learned to take care of himself

I can even see not all characters, but to say it is the most basic skill then say my skill based thief can't know it

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).

town guard/caravan guards on the other hand never have to heal themselves of others after orc and goblin and undead attacks?

Healing with herbs and so on, makes perfect sense to me.

why not just make that an option ANYONE regardless of class can learn at the cost of
a) skill points
b) feats
c) class feature
d) bacground
e) power selection

why is it those same herbs that make perfect sense to you (that I assume come with bandages and basic first aid) only work for some classes but not others... again I am not even saying gi

Yep - your thinking too much in terms of gamism at the moment

-
me, you have something phsyical anyone can use (herbs) with a skill you say is most basic (I will call it first aid) BUT becuse of the name of my class you would denie me it.

example of why your way is gamism: Player A is playing a ranger from the frozen north, he hunts with 2 axes, Player B is playing a fighter who grew up on the frontier as a member of town watch he spent years fighting off and survivieing attacks from goblins. Player C is playing a theif who grew up an orphan and was never cared for. He has had to scavange and learn to take care of himself. Player D is playing a barbarian from the dessert 200 miles away (he was brought here as a slave and escaped) he has never been in a forest before.

in your version of the game Player A and D could use healing herbs, remodies and survival techniques to heal themselves and others... well Players B and C could not.

In my version the DM and the players pick the powers, skills, feats, an abilities they feel fit and are not restrained byy the game at all... mine is more realistic. or atleast it can be,

It's just the features of a class you have to decide over.

why? Why can't my fighter be an indvidiulal that fits the story?

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

so how long do those herbs the barbarian have lastt? If I kill him an take his stuff how does that work?

 

[TrippyHippy]

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.

I'm saying that there are two distinct issues - one of a Leader character type, and the other about healing. I think the conflation of both issues lead to a poorly designed and contrived character class, that didn't fit archetypes well.

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

If you want to continue having dialogue with me, then you are going stop need to stop doing things like 'facepalm'. I just consider it rude.

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.

Basing a sematic argument upon terms used in a book that seems to have butchered the english language at times, isn't really a useful point of reference.

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?

I don't think the archetypes fit, not least because Fighters, Rogues and Warlords or knights or whatever don't cast magic of any type of description. Bards and Wizards do. Clerics, as an aside, don't rely upon the magical efficacy of words - they call upon a god to do the healing.

 

[TrippyHippy]

You don't have to make roles a part of the game to include the Warlord. You just need a non-magic using class that can inspire, improve, and "heal" (where heal is defined as restoring the abstract concept called hitpoints) other characters. And you call that class the Warlord out of respect to 4e, just like you call the class that primarily focuses on heavy armor and bashing but also wields holy magic a Paladin out of respect to the edition that brought them in.

I don't think it's an issue of respect - as I said, I'm not joining in a 3E/4E debate here. I am saying that the Warlord as a Class is flawed. The very description you give:

and "heal" (where heal is defined as restoring the abstract concept called hitpoints)

...is a really awkward attempt at justifying something that many gamers think is just illogical. As is calling the Class a Warlord, when the term patently causes confusion.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

I'm all in favor of making healing powers a domain of magic, although not exclusive for clerics.

That said, I'm also in favor of the game being perfectly playable without a healer character in the party. I'd prefer the healer as another fantasy archetype, not as a role you need to make your group viable.

While we are on that, I totally support a character class with focus on tactics, inspiration and battlefield control, I just don't like the idea of it being able to bring you back to combat once you're down.

Cheers,

 

[Vayden]

I don't think it's an issue of respect - as I said, I'm not joining in a 3E/4E debate here. I am saying that the Warlord as a Class is flawed. The very description you give:



...is a really awkward attempt at justifying something that many gamers think is just illogical. As is calling the Class a Warlord, when the term patently causes confusion.

I think Vancian magic is flawed and silly and would never play a Vancian caster again (and would probably house-rule it out of most of my games unless one of my players really wanted it for some reason), but I'm happy to have it back in the game in the name of unity. Why are you trying to exclude us?

 

[TrippyHippy]

I'm all in favor of making healing powers a domain of magic, although not exclusive for clerics.

That said, I'm also in favor of the game being perfectly playable without a healer character in the party. I'd prefer the healer as another fantasy archetype, not as a role you need to make your group viable.

While we are on that, I totally support a character class with focus on tactics, inspiration and battlefield control, I just don't like the idea of it being able to bring you back to combat once you're down.

Cheers,

Good post - I want to just add a bit to expand on what I'd like -
for the 'Warlord':

• a character class with focus on tactics, inspiration and battlefield control, AND political intrigue (i.e. not just a purely combat orientated character).
• Not a 'healing' class.
• A better name, eg 'Knight' or 'Prince' (Machievelli)...maybe just a 'Lord'.

 

[TrippyHippy]

I think Vancian magic is flawed and silly and would never play a Vancian caster again (and would probably house-rule it out of most of my games unless one of my players really wanted it for some reason), but I'm happy to have it back in the game in the name of unity. Why are you trying to exclude us?

I thnk if we looked at other threads we could find a rationale argument for the inclusion of Vancian magic. On this thread, however, your not really convicing me of your logic on the issues we have discussed - and I am not trying to exclude anybody.

 

[Aldarc]

I'm saying that there are two distinct issues - one of a Leader character type, and the other about healing. I think the conflation of both issues lead to a poorly designed and contrived character class, that didn't fit archetypes well.

Let me repeat myself then: "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." So does that just about sum it up?

If you want to continue having dialogue with me, then you are going stop need to stop doing things like 'facepalm'. I just consider it rude.

Sorry if I lack patience when I provide people with sources that explain terms and then have someone completely forget or ignore about it a few posts later. That's disrespectful. If you want to continue to have a dialogue with me, then you are going to have to read what I post so that it actually becomes a dialogue reaching synthesis rather than you having a monologue.

Basing a sematic argument upon terms used in a book that seems to have butchered the english language at times, isn't really a useful point of reference.

I'm sorry that that my source provides evidence against your case. From now on, I promise we will ignore evidence and simply reference things in terms of what is most convenient for your argument.

I don't think the archetypes fit, not least because Fighters, Rogues and Warlords or knights or whatever don't cast magic of any type of description. Bards and Wizards do.

Spell-like, supernatural, and extraordinary abilities. Ta-dah. Magic takes on many guises and not all of it has to be overt. But I guess this does go back to what other people are saying: mundanes don't get nice things.

Clerics, as an aside, don't rely upon the magical efficacy of words - they call upon a god to do the healing.

It's the efficacy of their prayers, so it's all the same.