Why we need Warlords in D&DN

[TrippyHippy]

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.

On the naming front - what would people think of calling the 'Warlord' class just 'Lord' on it's own? I also considered things like Knight and Prince (as discussed earlier), and you could possibly add Noble to the list. But I'm just checking if people like a compromise of calling the class just 'Lord'?

 

[Wormwood]

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.

I think the point is, would you be willing to allow for the inclusion of such a class in the game---hypothetically as one of those 'optional modules' that everyone hopes will exist?


(and on an unrelated note, it does seem like we're forming a bit of a cargo cult about modularity---but that's an argument for a different thread)

 

[TrippyHippy]

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.

Well, I am ceasing dialogue with you now.

 

[TrippyHippy]

I think the point is, would you be willing to allow for the inclusion of such a class in the game---hypothetically as one of those 'optional modules' that everyone hopes will exist?


(and on an unrelated note, it does seem like we're forming a bit of a cargo cult about modularity---but that's an argument for a different thread)

Well, I have also said so - yes. I just would like to see such a class adjusted to make more sense, in an archetypal way.

In terms of modularity, I also think that it can't work on every level. The new game is going to have to make some decisions, compromises or otherwise.

 

[Vayden]

(and on an unrelated note, it does seem like we're forming a bit of a cargo cult about modularity---but that's an argument for a different thread)

Please start a thread about this cult. I am interested in your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

 

[Aldarc]

Well, I am ceasing dialogue with you now.

I know. It's rude for me to expect the respect of open dialogue by you actually having to read the posts you are responding to. You stopped having a genuine dialogue with me several pages back. I have gone round and round pointing to you what the term 'leader' means in 4E and what 'hit points' mean in D&D and how the 'Warlord' operates in 4E, but you have persistently ignored that because the 'hammer' designed to 'hammer' was not a 'screwdriver' designed to 'screw screws.'

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I know. It's rude for me to expect the respect of open dialogue by you actually having to read the posts you are responding to. You stopped having a genuine dialogue with me several pages back. I have gone round and round pointing to you what the term 'leader' means in 4E and what 'hit points' mean in D&D and how the 'Warlord' operates in 4E, but you have persistently ignored that because the 'hammer' designed to 'hammer' was not a 'screwdriver' designed to 'screw screws.'

he also feels "The most basic skill" is beyond the rogue and fighter

 

[TrippyHippy]

And gravedancing isn't a particularly endearing feature either.

 

[Dausuul]

Come on, guys. This is the freakin' 5th Edition forum, and this little back-and-forth is your excuse for an edition war? Man, when 4E was coming out, we fought edition wars that made the skies bleed. Kids these days.

...Anyway.

Here's a question: It seems likely that 5E will offer at least some support for non-battlemat play, and if the warlord is to be a core class, it'll need to be able to function in that environment. The 4E warlord relies heavily on movement-based powers. What sort of abilities should the "taclord" have in the absence of exact positioning?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Come on, guys. This is the freakin' 5th Edition forum, and this little back-and-forth is your excuse for an edition war? Man, when 4E was coming out, we fought edition wars that made the skies bleed. Kids these days.

...Anyway.

Here's a question: It seems likely that 5E will offer at least some support for non-battlemat play, and if the warlord is to be a core class, it'll need to be able to function in that environment. The 4E warlord relies heavily on movement-based powers. What sort of abilities should the "taclord" have in the absence of exact positioning?

I think most of the powers can work, even with movement being abstract, a free move is good, bonus to hit damage, and out of turn attacks are good. Healing temp hp and saves/defences still work.