Bards and Warlords

Depending on how you view the concept of the bard and the warlord, is it not possible that they share a common base class/archtype?

Both have been described in D&D as leaders that improve morale and make use of healing.





I would say that they're about as similar to one another as the Fighter and Paladin are to one another, the key difference being that one enhances their abilities with magic while the other one does not. In that case, just as the Paladin could be viewed as a Cleric-Fighter, the Bard could be viewed as a Wizard-Warlord.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
Maybe. I'll still take one of each.
Both have been described in D&D as leaders that improve moral and make use of healing.

The bard is a leader only the 4e sense of leader being a polite euphemism for healer.

In D&D the bard has generally been the ultimate generalist class, with enough melee to protect himself, a bit of healing on the side, some arcane ability, a broad skill base and a few bard specific tricks.

The warlord is closer to an actual leader. He has enough fighting skill to be a secondary melee warrior, and a range of tactical and healing abilities to direct and support the party.

I suppose if you really took a high level view you could build a class that could cover both bard and warlords but you would have to generalize the concept out into a "support" class that could be built for all kinds of support roles.

The bard always struck me as a pointless and silly option.  You had to get five levels as a fighter, then five as a thief before you could even start being a bard.  I never saw anyone even try.

Bards are a class, now, but instead of casting Druid spells they're Arcane.

The Skald is presented as a bard sub-class and mixes martial exploits and arcanes spells.  It's a leader with martial exploits, so that's a bit like a Warlord.  But only in the way a Hunter, a controller with some primal invocations, is like a Druid.

I don't know what the Bard was like between it's AD&D after-market class incarnation and it's most recent one, but it seems like it has always been a spell caster of some sort, while the Warlord isn't. 
- Warlords! Join the 'Officer Country' Group! Join Grognards for 4e, the D&D that changed D&D.


D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium

Both have been described in D&D as leaders that improve moral and make use of healing.

The bard is a leader only the 4e sense of leader being a polite euphemism for healer.

In D&D the bard has generally been the ultimate generalist class, with enough melee to protect himself, a bit of healing on the side, some arcane ability, a broad skill base and a few bard specific tricks.

The warlord is closer to an actual leader. He has enough fighting skill to be a secondary melee warrior, and a range of tactical and healing abilities to direct and support the party.

I suppose if you really took a high level view you could build a class that could cover both bard and warlords but you would have to generalize the concept out into a "support" class that could be built for all kinds of support roles.




Yes in 2e the bard could only cast wizard spells, but he was categorized as a Rogue.      3e changed that, and it's a change I welcome since I really do like the idea of the Celtic bard.    In fact, giving him divine/druid spells makes him even more of a jack of all trades. 

As for the warlord,  for my playstyle that class will also need magic to heal.   I really only like using the hard core healing rules in 5e and for that reason the warlord class just won't work if it doesn't use magic.    With that said, I can see the warlord making use of some spells like Enthrall , Expeditious Retreat, Heroism, Good Hope,  Command, Friends, etc.



 


If you can't tell the difference between Elan from Order of the Stick and Sgt. Fury, well, I don't know what to say. 
Depending on how you view the concept of the bard and the warlord, is it not possible that they share a common base class/archtype?

Both have been described in D&D as leaders that improve morale and make use of healing.


Ugh.  That's like saying the cleric and bard are the same archetype because they both cast spells, make use of healing, and give bonuses to allies attacks (morale/bless)

The bard raises morale with magic, granting alleis across-the-board bonuses.
The warlord uses his knowledge of his allies' strengths and weakness and his observation of the enemy to point out openings that his allies can take advantage of.

They are very different archetypes and only resemble each other if (i) you've never played both a warlord and a bard, and (ii) you squint sideways.
Depending on how you view the concept of the bard and the warlord, is it not possible that they share a common base class/archtype?

Both have been described in D&D as leaders that improve morale and make use of healing.


Ugh.  That's like saying the cleric and bard are the same archetype because they both cast spells, make use of healing, and give bonuses to allies attacks (morale/bless)

The bard raises morale with magic, granting alleis across-the-board bonuses.
The warlord uses his knowledge of his allies' strengths and weakness and his observation of the enemy to point out openings that his allies can take advantage of.

They are very different archetypes and only resemble each other if (i) you've never played both a warlord and a bard, and (ii) you squint sideways.



Remove the fluff and they are the same.

The bard doesn't use magic for that.   


2e PHB
"Combat and spells, however, are not the main strength of the bard. His expertise is in dealing and communicating with others

....
The bard can also influence reactions of groups of NPCs. When performing before a group that is not attacking (and not intending to attack in just seconds), the bard can try to alter the mood of the listeners. He can try to soften their mood or make it uglier. The method can be whatever is most suitable to the situation at the moment -- a fiery speech, collection of jokes, a sad tale, a fine tune played on a fiddle, a haunting lute melody, or a heroic song from the old homeland....
...
The music, poetry, and stories of the bard can also be inspirational, rallying friends and allies. If the exact nature of an impending threat is known, the bard can heroically inspire his companions (immortalizing them in word and song), granting a +1 bonus to attack rolls, or a +1 bonus to saving throws, or a +2 bonus to morale (particularly useful in large battles) to those involved in melee. "




Likewise a warlord can do the same with is orders and commands.     

IMO, once you add healing into the mix you have the same **** just a different pile.   



The bard doesn't use magic.


The 2e bard doesn't use magic.  The 1e, 3e, and 4e bards all used magic.

Likewise a warlord can do the same with is orders and commands.


No, he doesn't.  I don't think you've actually played a warlord.  He uses strategy and observation to give his allies openings and opportunities.  The only "rallying" that he does is flavored as his martial healing, a small part of the warlord's suites of powers.

When you strip away the flavor, the differences in mechanics becomes even more stark.  The bard grants bonuses.  The warlord grants actions.  Stripped of flavor, the bard resembles a lightly armored cleric or paladin more than he resembles a lightly armored warlord.

Using healing to say a bard and warlord are "same **** just a different pile", would make the bard the same as the cleric (both do healing), or the bard the same as the illusionist (both do illusions in 1e, 3e, and 4e).


The bard doesn't use magic.


The 2e bard doesn't use magic.  The 1e, 3e, and 4e bards all used magic.

Likewise a warlord can do the same with is orders and commands.


No, he doesn't.  I don't think you've actually played a warlord.  He uses strategy and observation to give his allies openings and opportunities.  The only "rallying" that he does is flavored as his martial healing, a small part of the warlord's suites of powers.

When you strip away the flavor, the differences in mechanics becomes even more stark.  The bard grants bonuses.  The warlord grants actions.  Stripped of flavor, the bard resembles a lightly armored cleric or paladin more than he resembles a lightly armored warlord.

Using healing to say a bard and warlord are "same **** just a different pile", would make the bard the same as the cleric (both do healing), or the bard the same as the illusionist (both do illusions in 1e, 3e, and 4e).




Did the 4e warlord grant bonuses?    


As for the warlord,  for my playstyle that class will also need magic to heal.   I really only like using the hard core healing rules in 5e and for that reason the warlord class just won't work if it doesn't use magic.    With that said, I can see the warlord making use of some spells like Enthrall , Expeditious Retreat, Heroism, Good Hope,  Command, Friends, etc.

At that point your warlord looks a lot like a cleric who has picked up the more tactical wizards spells from his god. A significant part of the point of the warlord is that he is a non-magical leader and turning him into a spell caster defeats that entirely.

I would much rather see a warlord with expertise dice and a range of maneuvers to help his allies, plus a few warlord specific powers.

As for the warlord,  for my playstyle that class will also need magic to heal.   I really only like using the hard core healing rules in 5e and for that reason the warlord class just won't work if it doesn't use magic.    With that said, I can see the warlord making use of some spells like Enthrall , Expeditious Retreat, Heroism, Good Hope,  Command, Friends, etc.

At that point your warlord looks a lot like a cleric who has picked up the more tactical wizards spells from his god. A significant part of the point of the warlord is that he is a non-magical leader and turning him into a spell caster defeats that entirely.

I would much rather see a warlord with expertise dice and a range of maneuvers to help his allies, plus a few warlord specific powers.





Yes but any non-core class can be recreated with multi-class builds, so that argument isn't really fair.

I could say that your Warlord reminds me of the 2e Skald (Viking Warrior Bard) 


As for the warlord casting spells that wouldn't bother me.   Why can't he use his own brand of battle magic?   Other classes have access to magic, why not the warlord?   


As for the warlord,  for my playstyle that class will also need magic to heal.   I really only like using the hard core healing rules in 5e and for that reason the warlord class just won't work if it doesn't use magic.

So you want the class gone because it doesn't fit your playstyle?  What about those of us for whom martial healing works just fine?  What about those who find the Cleric class lacking?  It has no genre roots, and the idea of calling upon divine miracles in every fight, then lazing about for 8 hours to get them back can be seen as pretty absurd.  A lot more absurd than a strong leader's words inspiring a wounded or discouraged ally to get back up and fighting.  The Warlord is a wonderful alternative to the Cleric for many campaigns.  

And what is this so-called "playstyle" of yours, beyond anti-4e edition warring?

Stop trying to take the Warlord away from it's fans out of spite.  You hated 4e.  You're glad it's dead.   Fine.  Next is supposed to be for everyone, not a further chance for you take reprisals agsainst those who enjoyed a game you conceived a prejudice against.

- Warlords! Join the 'Officer Country' Group! Join Grognards for 4e, the D&D that changed D&D.


D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium


No, he doesn't.  I don't think you've actually played a warlord.  ... The bard grants bonuses.  The warlord grants actions.


Did the 4e warlord grant bonuses?    


So, you haven't played a warlord?

The 4e warlord has 334 powers associated with it.  It would be the exception, not the rule.  The 4e warlord generally grants actions or movement (or action and movement) to allies.  


Looking only at the first level warlord powers, we have... 
Action granting (with or without movement): 18
Other benefit: 9
Healing: 7
Flat bonus: 7
Pure movement granting: 4
Straight combat (no ally-boosting): 3
 
In contrast, the 4e bard is given...
Flat bonus: 10
Straight combat (no ally-boosting): 10
Other benefit: 9
Movement granting: 6
Healing: 3
Action granting (with or without movement): 2

By far, the warlord is defined by his ability to grant allies actions.  The bard is defined by his ability to grant allies bonuses.  
As for the warlord,  for my playstyle that class will also need magic to heal.   I really only like using the hard core healing rules in 5e and for that reason the warlord class just won't work if it doesn't use magic.    With that said, I can see the warlord making use of some spells like Enthrall , Expeditious Retreat, Heroism, Good Hope,  Command, Friends, etc.

At that point your warlord looks a lot like a cleric who has picked up the more tactical wizards spells from his god. A significant part of the point of the warlord is that he is a non-magical leader and turning him into a spell caster defeats that entirely.

I would much rather see a warlord with expertise dice and a range of maneuvers to help his allies, plus a few warlord specific powers.





Yes but any non-core class can be recreated with multi-class builds, so that argument isn't really fair.

I could say that your Warlord reminds me of the 2e Skald (Viking Warrior Bard) 


As for the warlord casting spells that wouldn't bother me.   Why can't he use his own brand of battle magic?   Other classes have access to magic, why not the warlord?   


The point is to play a non magical class.

It's like to ask "why rogue can't have his own brand of offensive magic instead of having these silly sneak attacks with Xd6 that are just like Melf's acid arrows disguised as weapon attacks.

The problem comes when players (it includes DM) don't want to take into consideration the abstract nature of HPs. 2nd edition bards giving bonus on any skills by singing or playing an instrument weren't making more sense, same for wizard studying how to forget a spell to make it work.

people are more at ease with some silly abstractions than the others, it's just a matter of taste. And I don't think the warlord's abstraction is the worst.

Why is this even an argument if people still want the return of the 3e style sorcerer? Warlord and Bard are MUCH more different that Sorcerer and Wizard were :P
My two copper.
As for the warlord,  for my playstyle that class will also need magic to heal.   I really only like using the hard core healing rules in 5e and for that reason the warlord class just won't work if it doesn't use magic.

So you want the class gone because it doesn't fit your playstyle?  What about those of us for whom martial healing works just fine?  What about those who find the Cleric class lacking?  It has no genre roots, and the idea of calling upon divine miracles in every fight, then lazing about for 8 hours to get them back can be seen as pretty absurd.  A lot more absurd than a strong leader's words inspiring a wounded or discouraged ally to get back up and fighting.  The Warlord is a wonderful alternative to the Cleric for many campaigns.  

And what is this so-called "playstyle" of yours, beyond anti-4e edition warring?

Stop trying to take the Warlord away from it's fans out of spite.  You hated 4e.  You're glad it's dead.   Fine.  Next is supposed to be for everyone, not a further chance for you take reprisals agsainst those who enjoyed a game you conceived a prejudice against.




No don't take me the wrong way.  I don't want to see the warlord dead.   I just have a different idea of what the warlord is.  And yes I reject martial healing because it doesn't fit with my playstyle.  That statement however, shouldn't make you feel threatened.  

 I'm not saying that your playstyle is any less valid than mine.   In fact, I've made it clear that if the warlord is to be a core class it will have to be packaged with options (non magical and magical), or remain an optional class.    

I'm starting to get the impression that the warlord is a sacred class that can't be altered and must remain playstyle specific.  All I'm saying is that you can't inject the warlord (that fits your playstyle) into the core of the system and expect people to accept it.     If you do that then you are forcing your playstyle on everyone else and that just isn't fair at all.   







By far, the warlord is defined by his ability to grant allies actions.  The bard is defined by his ability to grant allies bonuses.  



Do you really think that the warlord will grant extra actions in D&D Next?    Mechanically, I don't see that happening.


 The point is to play a non magical class.

It's like to ask "why rogue can't have his own brand of offensive magic instead of having these silly sneak attacks with Xd6 that are just like Melf's acid arrows disguised as weapon attacks.

The problem comes when players (it includes DM) don't want to take into consideration the abstract nature of HPs. 2nd edition bards giving bonus on any skills by singing or playing an instrument weren't making more sense, same for wizard studying how to forget a spell to make it work.

people are more at ease with some silly abstractions than the others, it's just a matter of taste. And I don't think the warlord's abstraction is the worst.




I've seen some arguments that the rogue should have shadow magic.   They are valid points to consider.    

I'm just not a fan to doing magical things without magic and that's how I see the warlords healing ability, but that just my opinion.   

Which is why I think the bard and the warlord can be built on the same chassis.  


Did the 4e warlord grant bonuses?

The 4E warlord has a lot of what I call piñatas - hit the designated target and candy comes out.

A typical bonus, granted by say a cleric, is "YOU! You do +4 extra damage when you hit!"

A 4E warlord's piñata is "Hey team! Hit HIM and do +4 extra damage!"

As noted, the 4E warlord also very often grants extra actions - free-action attacks, free-action movement, free-action charges - to his allies. In fact he has more powers that do this than all other classes *combined*.

(And when you can hang an "easier-to-hit" piñata and an "extra-damage" piñata on the same target, and then start handing out extra attacks, it gets really sweet.)
"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose
Do you really think that the warlord will grant extra actions in D&D Next?


Yes.

Mechanically, I don't see that happening.


I guess we'll find out.
I'm starting to get the impression that the warlord is a sacred class that can't be altered and must remain playstyle specific.  

It may have become something of a litmus test for WotC's claim that 5e is meant to be everybody's D&D.  It's the only new-to-4e class that's on the table for inclusion in 5e core.  Excluding it would give the lie to the 'inclusive' goal.  The warlord also isn't 'playstyle specific,' it's a pretty flexible class, able to encompass concepts from lead-from-the-front warriors, to cunning tacticians, to Garthanos's non-combatant 'princess build' that just stands there and cries very effectually for aid, and quite a few more, besides.  

And, for the record, you started this thread with the proposition of folding the warlord into the bard, not expanding the purview of the warlord:

Depending on how you view the concept of the bard and the warlord, is it not possible that they share a common base class/archtype?


Both have been described in D&D as leaders that improve morale and make use of healing.
We don't even have an inkling of the playtest warlord, as yet, but it's easy to imagine it being in the "martial ghetto," gaining no meaningful class abilities, no exploits, just ED+Maneuvers like the Fighter and Rogue.  The advantage of that structure (like that of the 3.5 fighter) is it does give you a lot of potential to allow customization.  Dice could be distributed via various maneuvers to heal hps, grant temp hps, give bonuses, allow allies limited extra actions, de-buff enemies and so forth.  If you don't like the rationale behind or mechanics of a given maneuver, you simply don't take it - if it's a "default" maneuver, changing the default is a simple enough variant to implement.  

5e really needs something like Wrecan's SARN-FU to support "Theatre of the Mind."

"You want The Tooth?  You can't handle The Tooth!"  - Dahlver-Nar.

"If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly"  - E. Gary Gygax

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

Oy, these threads... 

No offense.  

Danny

Is it possible to say the bard and warlord are the same class? Yes. Does that make a better game? No, IMHO. The warlord is martial and relies on good strategy and inspiring his friends. The bard is magical, relies on confounding his enemies and using his magic to augment his friends.
Please let's design mechanics to help reinforce distinction. I loved my 4e bard, I don't want it turned into a prestige class for a rogue/wizard. I don't want it melded with a warlord to become some (any healer who isn't a cleric) class.
Is it possible to say the bard and warlord are the same class? Yes. Does that make a better game? No, IMHO. The warlord is martial and relies on good strategy and inspiring his friends. The bard is magical, relies on confounding his enemies and using his magic to augment his friends. Please let's design mechanics to help reinforce distinction. I loved my 4e bard, I don't want it turned into a prestige class for a rogue/wizard. I don't want it melded with a warlord to become some (any healer who isn't a cleric) class.




Well a bard can also be just as Martial as your version of the warlord.   In fact, that's what the Skald was in 2e.        I'd just like to see a system that can support all different types of bards and warlords.      

I'm looking for core mechanics that don't enforce a subjective destinction.     I'm suggesting that a common chassis for these two classes can exist.     The warlord and bard both do their 'thing' with words.  Communication is therefore very important for both classes.  With that said, I see no reason why there can't be magical and non-magical variants for both classes.   


 With that said, I see no reason why there can't be magical and non-magical variants for both classes.  


That's what specialties are for!!  You want a spellcasting warlord?  Make a wizard and give him a Commander specialty.

It doesn't make sense to try to squeeze a spellcasting and nonspellcasting variant into the same class as a class is primarily a power delivery system.

As for a skald, we'l have to see how the bard is developed.  In 4e, you could do it because a bard was given a mix of martial and magical powers that all worked on the same format so they were interchangeable.  But in Next, spells are working on a spell memorization (i.e., fire-and-forget) system, while maneuvers are given the expertise dice, refreshing every round.

The monk actually shows us the way this could work because the monk is the first class to use both maneuvers and spells (called ki powers).  If the bard has the same thing, with spells and maneuvers, then you could conceivably have a class variant who takes no spells but gets extra maneuvers.

I don't see that for the warlord, as the basic concept doesn't really accommodate the idea of spell memorization.  That's why a magical warlord is better made using multiclassing or specialties.
 With that said, I see no reason why there can't be magical and non-magical variants for both classes.  


That's what specialties are for!!  You want a spellcasting warlord?  Make a wizard and give him a Commander specialty.

It doesn't make sense to try to squeeze a spellcasting and nonspellcasting variant into the same class as a class is primarily a power delivery system.

As for a skald, we'l have to see how the bard is developed.  In 4e, you could do it because a bard was given a mix of martial and magical powers that all worked on the same format so they were interchangeable.  But in Next, spells are working on a spell memorization (i.e., fire-and-forget) system, while maneuvers are given the expertise dice, refreshing every round.

The monk actually shows us the way this could work because the monk is the first class to use both maneuvers and spells (called ki powers).  If the bard has the same thing, with spells and maneuvers, then you could conceivably have a class variant who takes no spells but gets extra maneuvers.

I don't see that for the warlord, as the basic concept doesn't really accommodate the idea of spell memorization.  That's why a magical warlord is better made using multiclassing or specialties.



well I wouldn't design the warlord with a memorization mechanic.    The Monk class might be a good template for the warlord.   His powers seem magical, but they work on some principle that is supernatural.     I'd be fine with the warlord being a martial class, I'd just like to see powers that heal wounds to have a supernatural basis.   I'm not suggesting that the warlord actually cast spells or have to memorize them.   For example, the Paladin's lay on hands ability is not a spell, but it is magical.   



 


If you can't tell the difference between Elan from Order of the Stick and Sgt. Fury, well, I don't know what to say. 



It depends on who is drawing them .... Rob Leifeld would make them both look the same, just with tiny feet and badly drawn hands.

Personally, I dont know why both the Bard and the Warlord HAVE to be "magical". What they both do is more the power of their respective personalities.

A Bard inspires through his art, weaving a tapestry that helps/hinders as he performs.
A Warlord inspires/disheartens through intimidation (not the skill) and battle prowess.

Cant these be done without it being "magic" ?
If you can't tell the difference between Elan from Order of the Stick and Sgt. Fury, well, I don't know what to say. 



It depends on who is drawing them .... Rob Leifeld would make them both look the same, just with tiny feet and badly drawn hands.

Personally, I dont know why both the Bard and the Warlord HAVE to be "magical". What they both do is more the power of their respective personalities.

A Bard inspires through his art, weaving a tapestry that helps/hinders as he performs.
A Warlord inspires/disheartens through intimidation (not the skill) and battle prowess.

Cant these be done without it being "magic" ?



I agree, those actions (which are based on communication) can be non-magical.

But once you want play the Celtic bard that heals with a song or the warlord that heals wounds, magic must enter the picture for some playstyles.   Of course, that largely depends on your definition of what hit points are.    

The problem is that no one agrees on what hit points are, the mechanism that bard and the warlord use to heal wounds is different for every playstyle.    So far the designers have recognized this problem with D&D Next optional resting rules, I just hope they continue with those options when they design the bard and warlord healing powers.


well I wouldn't design the warlord with a memorization mechanic.    The Monk class might be a good template for the warlord.   His powers seem magical, but they work on some principle that is supernatural.     I'd be fine with the warlord being a martial class, I'd just like to see powers that heal wounds to have a supernatural basis.



I'd prefer that the warlord's "healing" grant temporary hit points and be described not as healing but as motiva5ting people to ignore the pain.  Totally nonmagical.

I'm not suggesting that the warlord actually cast spells or have to memorize them.   For example, the Paladin's lay on hands ability is not a spell, but it is magical.


We have yet to see how lay on hands will be implemented as we have no Next version of the paladin.  Based on the monk, I might surmise that the paladin will be given expertise dice which he can use for his at-will powers like detect evil and smite and then also be given spell memorization for his daily abilities, which may include an option to spontaneously convert any spell into a lay on hands healing.
well I wouldn't design the warlord with a memorization mechanic.    The Monk class might be a good template for the warlord.   His powers seem magical, but they work on some principle that is supernatural.     I'd be fine with the warlord being a martial class, I'd just like to see powers that heal wounds to have a supernatural basis.



I'd prefer that the warlord's "healing" grant temporary hit points and be described not as healing but as motiva5ting people to ignore the pain.  Totally nonmagical.

I'm not suggesting that the warlord actually cast spells or have to memorize them.   For example, the Paladin's lay on hands ability is not a spell, but it is magical.


We have yet to see how lay on hands will be implemented as we have no Next version of the paladin.



The clerics turn undead ability was a spell and now it isn't.  I'd expect the same for the paladin.  

As for temp hit points,  we do have the spell Aid.     


The clerics turn undead ability was a spell and now it isn't.  I'd expect the same for the paladin.  

As for temp hit points,  we do have the spell Aid.     


We'll see.  We've gotten very far afield.  But from what I gather, your position on warlords is as follows:

You claim that you think a warlord can be included.  Yet...
You don't want any healing powers to be included except as a spell, even temporary hp
You don't think any action granting powers will be included in Next
You don't think any movement granting powers will be included in Next

Since you've eliminated all the warlord's signature abilities, except the relatively minor quality of granting flat bonuses, and that's what bards primarily do, the warlord should be folded into the bard (who can be allowed to use magical healing).

 Whcih is why i don't think you actually want a warlrod to be included.  You don't want (or can't imagine) any of the warlord's distinguishing mechanics -- the ones that make the warlord distinct from bards and clerics -- to be included in the game.  When you strip down what you would personally accept, we're left with a non-singing skald.  

But I don't accept that the loss of martial healing, as long as it is in the form of temporary hit points.  I don't accept the loss of action and movement granting powers.  So my vision of a warlord does not look like a non-singing skald.  It looks like a warlord.
The clerics turn undead ability was a spell and now it isn't.  I'd expect the same for the paladin.  

As for temp hit points,  we do have the spell Aid.     


We'll see.  We've gotten very far afield.  But from what I gather, your position on warlords is as follows:

You claim that you think a warlord can be included.  Yet...
You don't want any healing powers to be included except as a spell, even temporary hp
You don't think any action granting powers will be included in Next
You don't think any movement granting powers will be included in Next

Since you've eliminated all the warlord's signature abilities, except the relatively minor quality of granting flat bonuses, and that's what bards primarily do, the warlord should be folded into the bard (who can be allowed to use magical healing).

 Whcih is why i don't think you actually want a warlrod to be included.  You don't want (or can't imagine) any of the warlord's distinguishing mechanics -- the ones that make the warlord distinct from bards and clerics -- to be included in the game.  When you strip down what you would personally accept, we're left with a non-singing skald.  

But I don't accept that the loss of martial healing, as long as it is in the form of temporary hit points.  I don't accept the loss of action and movement granting powers.  So my vision of a warlord does not look like a non-singing skald.  It looks like a warlord.



no that's not what I think


You claim that you think a warlord can be included.  Yet...


I never said it couldn't.

You don't want any healing powers to be included except as a spell, even temporary hp


I don't want healing to be non-supernatural in nature.  The game must respect all playstyles.  Therefore, any warlord that heals without the aid of magic or some other supernatural force is playstyle specific and invalid in the core.    As an optional class it's fine however.   

You don't think any action granting powers will be included in Next


I don't think that your mechanical (4e concept) of what a Warlord is will be the same in next.   

You don't think any movement granting powers will be included in Next


Never said that.  

You define the warlord as a class that grants extra actions and movement.     That's fine.   I'm not arguing that.   You define the bard as class that grants bonuses.     The problem with your argument is that they both grant bonuses, extra actions, and movement in 4e.     They are still built on the same chassis.    They might have different goals/ styles, but they share a common root, which is what my original post was all about.  They both use words to do X.       Your argument is like saying that the Abjurer shouldn't be a wizard because the Enchanter does something completely different.     The fact is, I could create a base class called Wordmaster and derive the bard and the warlord from it.   In fact, I could derive all sorts of concepts for the bard and the warlord.     The warlord and bard might not even be a base class to begin with.   In addition, some concepts could be playstyle specific or contain optional rules to support each playstyle.  

The point is, I dont' really care what powers the warlord is granted or how those powers function.   All I'm saying is that if those powers cross the line of being supernatural then they should be supernatural,  and gamist concepts that cater to one playstyle in particular shouldn't be forced on everyone.     

Lastly, I don't accept martial healing as a concept to being with.  Therefore any class that has martial healing (non-supernartual / non-magical) is unacceptable for my playstyle.  


I've stated this previously, though it bears repeating: all of the overlap issues with regard to the warlord and bard can be traced back to the insistence upon the shared term 'inspiration'.

The bard has been inspiring his allies to be bigger and better at what they do for decades, so leave him alone and let him keep his stuff. The 'charismatic hero' bit is covered.
The warlord has been offering his tactical insight and strategic ingenuity since his debut, and it's the only truly unique thing he does, so emphasize it and run with it. There's plainly unclaimed space for the 'intelligent hero with a weapon' bit.

We keep on this whole 'charisma-based commander/leader of people/intimdating' racket and this debate will never end (ever). The warlord is a tactician. That much is his and his alone. Those fond of warlords are being presented with a wonderful opportunity to differentiate, define, and mold a class that has uncontested reason for existing. -- Choose your battles.

If you would like your tactical genius to also be charismatic, the game fully accomodates this, but the warlord should be first and foremost a class of genius ingenuity and tactical prowess. His allies may listen to him because he's an effective leader (CHA), because he has a deep sense for the spirit of combat (WIS), or because he exemplifies his knowledge with physicality (CON/STR/DEX), but the reason they trust him is due to the fact that he understands what they don't (INT).

The core warlord should reference inspiration as a tertiary capability (if at all), lest he forever bear the prejudice of being a 'bard without the lute and magic' who's reason for existence requires endless defending in sour internet threads.

Danny

@mrpopstar

Yes, both of these 'word master' classes do share some similarities.    

It seems like CS dice are common framework for fighting types (even rogues).     It would be nice if a common framework was built for these clases too.  


You don't want any healing powers to be included except as a spell, even temporary hp


I don't want healing to be non-supernatural in nature.


That's what I wrote!!!

The game must respect all playstyles.  Therefore, any warlord that heals without the aid of magic or some other supernatural force is playstyle specific and invalid in the core.


That's nto how modularity works and if you continue to carry this misconception with you, you are inevitably going to be disappointed and connfused by how Next is shaping up.  

Each maneuver is a modular options.  If the warlord has the option of healing, you can disallow those options in your game.  Simply tell someone that they cannot take the warlord maneuvers that allow healing.  Just like how someone who doesn't like how the fighter's parry works (which was an actual complaint) can disallow that menuver in the game.  Since maneuvers are all modular options, it's easy to disallow them.

That way, the warlord can be martial and have healign, and you can still allow the class in your game by disallowing those options you don't like.  Everyone wins.

You don't think any action granting powers will be included in Next


I don't think that your mechanical (4e concept) of what a Warlord is will be the same in next.  


You specifically said that you did not believe action granting would be in Next.

You don't think any movement granting powers will be included in Next


Never said that.  


you specifically said action granting would not be in Next.  Movement is a type of action.

The problem with your argument is that they both grant bonuses, extra actions, and movement in 4e.p


That's not a problem with the argument.  It's a problem that you simply have almost no experience in 4e so when ppeople point stuff out you fundamentally don't understand it.

Warlords had very few flat-bonus powers.  So saying that warlords grant bonuses is only true in the most hypertechnical sense and completely ignores what the class is about.  It is only an argument that makes sense to someone who is arguing from their conclusions.

They are still built on the same chassis.


Every class in 4e was built on the same chassis.  There fore, this cannot be the basis of any valuid argument.

The fact is, I could create a base class called Wordmaster and derive the bard and the warlord from it.


The fact is we can all do a lot of things that don't make any logical sense.  That you can do something is not evidence of why doing it is a good idea.  You keep retreating to this enormously vacuous statements whenever you provide specific because your specific are awful and irrational.  SAnd when pointed out you just retreat into that turtle shell of looking at classes from the wrong en of a spyglass and declaring they all look like dots to you.

I dont' really care what powers the warlord is granted or how those powers function.


That's clearly untrue, since your entire position is framed from your distaste of martial healing and your disbelief that Next will contain action-granting powers.  If you didn't care, then this wouldn't be an issue in any way.  But you started a whoel thread based on this issue!

Lastly, I don't accept martial healing as a concept to being with.  Therefore any class that has martial healing (non-supernartual / non-magical) is unacceptable for my playstyle.  


So disallow all martial healign powers.  That's how modularity works.  It's not a veto on an entire class. It's much more granular thatn that.

But I suspect that's unacceptable to you because you're using your distaste for martial healing as a stalking horse to dismantle the warlord entirely.
I don't think that your mechanical (4e concept) of what a Warlord is will be the same in next.

This, right here, sums it up; and I largely agree.

The warlord, as we know and love him, is purely a mechanical construct that epitomizes everything 'good' about 4E and has a storytime skin laid over it. It's the great conceit of the edition that the warlord is marvelous, and that he's marvelous solely because he plays with all of the toys made available by the premise of the edition.

It's deeply interesting to me that the bard, who's been a victim of nearly every edition, existing in a game that could only define the effect of weapon-focused heroes, spell-focused heroes, and skill-focused heroes, who suffered greatly for lack of an identity and cohesive contribution for 30+ years, is so easily compared to the best-supported, most-clearly defined, posterchild of an edition that lasted less than 4. The lucid parameters through which support classes (Leaders) could now contribute did unprecedented good for the game. The bard class is an unsung success in 4E (uncharacteristically overshadowed by the new shiney by the time he got his due).

The conversation we should be having is one pertinent to the ways in which DDN will support these heroes in light of the playtest's current structure. I anticipate them becoming largely feature-dependent, with defining ways of interacting with the spell and/or maneuver systems.

Danny

@mrpopstar

Yes, both of these 'word master' classes do share some similarities.

Let the bard create a pool of XD with his music that allies can draw upon when taking an action (a la the 4E skald).
Let the warlord spend XD in response to situations as they present themselves during enemy actions (i.e. enemy misses with an attack and warlord can expend XD to offer targeted ally an action, etc.) or ally advantages (i.e. ally gains advantage and warlord can expend XD to offer ally a rider on their action, etc.).

In these ways, the singing/orating/speaking bard is the 'word master' (as he's always been), and the warlord contributes via his interaction with the battle (using words, gestures, attacks, etc.). If you take away the whole 'warlord is inspiring me to do stuff' thing, the awkward 'word master' moniker no longer applies.

It seems like CS dice are common framework for fighting types (even rogues). It would be nice if a common framework was built for these clases too.

A common framework would only contribute to more sameness.

Danny

The bard makes sense as a "Jack-of-All-Trades" archetype, equally emphasizing combat, skills, RP, and world-changing magics.  

If the game should (merciful Buddha, hear my plea) return to a condition in which there's actually some differentiation between the classes, and we dump this "BALANCE!" nonsense, then the Bard may actually become useful and interesting again.

For the Warlord, of course, there is no excuse outside of a post 10th-level prestige class.

The bard makes sense as a "Jack-of-All-Trades" archetype, equally emphasizing combat, skills, RP, and world-changing magics.  

Of course, post 4E, the BALANCE UBER ALLES crew have, sadly, made such an archetype unnecessary, since they think that thieves, fighters, mages, etc. should *ALL* be equally proficient at everything, all the time.  Under the circumstances, everyone's a bard now.

If the game should (merciful Buddha, hear my plea) return to a condition in which there's actually some differentiation between the classes, and we dump this "BALANCE!" nonsense, then the Bard may actually become useful and interesting again.

For the Warlord, of course, there is no excuse outside of a post 10th-level prestige class.

 



The nightmare balance design constraint is one of the primary reasons I do not want 4e and 5e