SERIOUS "WARLORD" QUESTION FOR PEEPS THAT HATE WARLORDS

I get what a lot of people hate about Warlords with so-called "martial healing", but I wanted to for a minute ask a serious question of pre-3e peeps (of whom I count myself in a lot of ways). The question is the same whether it becomes its own class or is just half-assed pieces like it is currently. For me, the essence of the Warlord is not the healing, its granting attacks, the "leadership", sacrificing yourself (and your turn) in order to make something special happen, even if you are not rolling the dice. That sounds a touch romantic, I know, but the Warlord is a romantic class in a lot of ways.

ANYWAYS, my question has to do with the healing aspect. What if the Warlord COULD NOT HEAL HP AT ALL, EVEN TEMP HP SHOULD THEY EVER EXIST........BUT the Warlord could automatically stabilize a dying PC, i.e. keep a PC alive, bring them to "0", etc? This gives it a "field medic" feel while completely taking any notion of "magic" out of it.

This idea may have been presented before, so if so, forgive me. I seriously am curious though, if you take the magic out of the healing and made it more "mortal", would people still hate the Warlord? And if so, why? 

One way or the other, I think there HAS to be a maneuver that lets you swap your attack for another party member's in order for it to be possible to even approximate a Warlord.

FROTHSOF D&D

FREE 5E ADVENTURE!!!

DOWNLOAD MY FREE 4E ZINE!!!

 

 

But what if the 'magic' was actually born of strong self assurance, willpower and a nascent transandental humanity?
D&D is like religion. People focus far too much on the differences rather than the similarities.
But what if the 'magic' was actually born of strong self assurance, willpower and a nascent transandental humanity?



I can appreciate where you are going with this, but humor me for a second.
 The healing surge mechanic or anything like it is the big hang up for me personally. Apart from that I do not really care about any class that was not in AD&D and the monk which I do not like.
 The healing surge mechanic or anything like it is the big hang up for me personally. Apart from that I do not really care about any class that was not in AD&D and the monk which I do not like.



Ok, I am not talking about healing surges, or so-called "hit dice". Just imagine you character gets knocked to zero (or lower, rolling with current 5e rules), and the Warlord can stabilize you and keep you from dying. Something like that. If it had no magical healing, would you have a problem with any other aspect? Like granting attacks, etc?
 The healing surge mechanic or anything like it is the big hang up for me personally. Apart from that I do not really care about any class that was not in AD&D and the monk which I do not like.



Ok, I am not talking about healing surges, or so-called "hit dice". Just imagine you character gets knocked to zero (or lower, rolling with current 5e rules), and the Warlord can stabilize you and keep you from dying. Something like that. If it had no magical healing, would you have a problem with any other aspect? Like granting attacks, etc?



It significantly reduces how much I hate him,  but I'm still not overly fond of his "If you stand near this person you're suddenly better at (insert skill)".

Plus,  you're introducing other kinds of problems. 

-If he's granting attacks,  is he still attacking?  If not,  then how many attacks is he granting?  Because if it's only one it's a wash.

-How many people is he granting attack to?  If it's multiple people,  then he just became more a mandatory party member than the Cleric ever was.

-Do mages get to cast two spells a round?  Because if so,  that's going to make melee classes minor citizens to a degree that would make 3rd edition look fair.

-If there's two warlords,  are they granting stacking bonuses/attacks?  Because if not then the class has a fundamental flaw,  and if so,  the class has a fundamental flaw.  Either someone is effectively useless,  or it's going to be highly exploitable.  The party will have a mandatory minimum of 2 Warlords if it stacks,  which is even worse than the problem he supposedly solves.   
 The healing surge mechanic or anything like it is the big hang up for me personally. Apart from that I do not really care about any class that was not in AD&D and the monk which I do not like.



Ok, I am not talking about healing surges, or so-called "hit dice". Just imagine you character gets knocked to zero (or lower, rolling with current 5e rules), and the Warlord can stabilize you and keep you from dying. Something like that. If it had no magical healing, would you have a problem with any other aspect? Like granting attacks, etc?



It significantly reduces how much I hate him,  but I'm still not overly fond of his "If you stand near this person you're suddenly better at (insert skill)".

Plus,  you're introducing other kinds of problems. 

-If he's granting attacks,  is he still attacking?  If not,  then how many attacks is he granting?  Because if it's only one it's a wash.

-How many people is he granting attack to?  If it's multiple people,  then he just became more a mandatory party member than the Cleric ever was.

-Do mages get to cast two spells a round?  Because if so,  that's going to make melee classes minor citizens to a degree that would make 3rd edition look fair.

-If there's two warlords,  are they granting stacking bonuses/attacks?  Because if not then the class has a fundamental flaw,  and if so,  the class has a fundamental flaw.  Either someone is effectively useless,  or it's going to be highly exploitable.  The party will have a mandatory minimum of 2 Warlords if it stacks,  which is even worse than the problem he supposedly solves.   



1. No, he couldn't attack the same round as granting one.

2. One attack for the most part. It isn't a wash bc he could grant the most powerful party member an attack while maintaining separate skills. At very high levels or with very advanced maneuvers they could possible grant multiple attacks or attack along with someone.

3. As for granting a Mage an attack, it would likely be a cantrip. Warlords tradtionally only grant a "basic" attack. So they couldn't let a Mage cast Fireball for example.

4. I am assuming the "stack" questions are assuming the warlord gets to attack when it grants an attack. Typically it us a trade off...the Warlord simply does not attack but lets another party member do so. So there isn't any stacking. However, you get more tactical choices, like you could be pinned down by a wooden beam and still have someone 25 ft away attack.
Everytime I think of the Warlord, I think it would work being a bard variant aka the Warchanter.  He yells more than sings, and in the case of stablizing a fallen companion.  He's the gritty sargeant down on the ground next to the fallen Fighter yelling "DON"T YOU DIE ON ME YET SOLDIER!", or the guy yelling at the fighter to get over that hill and hit'em hard.  Yelling at the mage to "get up that cliff, we don't have time for no wimps round here!".
If you want to play a fighter who can heal, can't you just play a cleric?  Or a paladin?

Ask your DM, "Hey, can my background be that I used to be an officer in the army?  I want to roleplay being the guy who orders around the rest of the party."

There.  Warlord.  Knock yourself out.

EDIT: Or just keep playing 4e.  There are, like, a bazillion books out for it. 
"Therefore, you are the crapper, I'm merely the vessel through which you crap." -- akaddk
 If the mere presence of an option is in the game is an anathema to you, 5E won't be for you.  The edition that, at its core, is supposed to have modular things, will be an anathema to you, since you can't, in your infinite wisdom, seem to be able to tolerate optional material being in the game. 



By the same token, if something you don't like isn't in the game, can't you just roll with it in transcendent, zen-like bliss and make up your own "module" to add to the system?  Or use one of the gazillion versions being proposed?  Why are you so panicked about that piece being excluded?



Because that doesn't satisfy the whole "Inclusive" nature that 5e is supposed to support. Putting something in, either Core or a Module, that those who don't want it can ignore it is one thing, however, not including some favorite part of the game as at least a module in many ways invalidates the game for people. Especially those who play the game for some of those options and flavors. Its far easier to not use an optional module that's out there, than it is to have to houserule create something. It can be done, and has been done by many of us, but that is, as I said, not Inclusive, that's Exclusive.

The MAIN selling point for 5e was, as I understand it, that every player/DM is supposed to, by use of the Modularity, be able to play the game they want, while a different selection of options can allow others to play the game they want, and if at all possible, many styles should be able to play at the same table (probably the hardest part)...arguing to leave the Warlord out is arguing to exclude those players who want to play the Warlord...you can exclude them from YOUR table if you want, nobody twists your arm, however, they can't "as easily" add it into their table...they would have to either recreate the class or reflavor another class build into what they want...can be done, but that's still not inclusive.

That is the difference 
Want continued support for 4e, check this out, 4e Lives and Breaths

Check out MY eZine, Random Encounters Seuss (lordseussmd on YM)
 If the mere presence of an option is in the game is an anathema to you, 5E won't be for you.  The edition that, at its core, is supposed to have modular things, will be an anathema to you, since you can't, in your infinite wisdom, seem to be able to tolerate optional material being in the game. 



By the same token, if something you don't like isn't in the game, can't you just roll with it in transcendent, zen-like bliss and make up your own "module" to add to the system?  Or use one of the gazillion versions being proposed?  Why are you so panicked about that piece being excluded?


I am not, nor do I profess to be a professional game designer.  And expecting me to have to make stuff for my own personal use just because there are people out there too mentally deficient to be able to use the word "No" is less than helpful.  Especially when the game professes to be able to mimic the experience of the past editions, all of them.  Not having the options to do so makes 5E a non-starter.  If the game has all the options you want and then some, what is the big deal?  Is it because you might have to *GASP* BAN something in your games?  You know, something people have been doing for damn-near four decades?

Having more options in the game is not a bad thing.  D&D has always assumed that a DM has the right to say no to certain options in the books.  Or should Rule Zero not be an option either?
CORE MORE, NOT CORE BORE!
 If the mere presence of an option is in the game is an anathema to you, 5E won't be for you.  The edition that, at its core, is supposed to have modular things, will be an anathema to you, since you can't, in your infinite wisdom, seem to be able to tolerate optional material being in the game. 



By the same token, if something you don't like isn't in the game, can't you just roll with it in transcendent, zen-like bliss and make up your own "module" to add to the system?  Or use one of the gazillion versions being proposed?  Why are you so panicked about that piece being excluded?



Because that doesn't satisfy the whole "Inclusive" nature that 5e is supposed to support. Putting something in, either Core or a Module, that those who don't want it can ignore it is one thing, however, not including some favorite part of the game as at least a module in many ways invalidates the game for people. Especially those who play the game for some of those options and flavors. Its far easier to not use an optional module that's out there, than it is to have to houserule create something. It can be done, and has been done by many of us, but that is, as I said, not Inclusive, that's Exclusive.

The MAIN selling point for 5e was, as I understand it, that every player/DM is supposed to, by use of the Modularity, be able to play the game they want, while a different selection of options can allow others to play the game they want, and if at all possible, many styles should be able to play at the same table (probably the hardest part)...arguing to leave the Warlord out is arguing to exclude those players who want to play the Warlord...you can exclude them from YOUR table if you want, nobody twists your arm, however, they can't "as easily" add it into their table...they would have to either recreate the class or reflavor another class build into what they want...can be done, but that's still not inclusive.

That is the difference 


I have come to the conclusion that there are people that are diametrically opposed to the core tenants of 5E, but want to force the game to fit their limited view of what they feel D&D is.  The sad thing, people can do this without limiting the options of others, they just would rather ruin the experience for everyone else, rather than just do what 5E is intended to do and choose what modules they will be using at any given time.
CORE MORE, NOT CORE BORE!

I have come to the conclusion that there are people that are diametrically opposed to the core tenants of 5E, but want to force the game to fit their limited view of what they feel D&D is.  The sad thing, people can do this without limiting the options of others, they just would rather ruin the experience for everyone else, rather than just do what 5E is intended to do and choose what modules they will be using at any given time.



Exactly

Me, I'm a total fan of 4e, and yet, for 5e, I'm a huge fan of the Core 4(or 5 with Psionics) philosophy, however, I have no problem with modules for things I don't want, AND sometimes needing to use a Module for something I do want, when something else makes more sense as a base-line assumption.

IF they have more than just the Core classes as I see them, I may or may not allow them, depending on how I feel about the final versions...but I have no problem with them being included. Same with exotic races (I'm a real fan of custom Races by Campaign setting for instance)

Include the Warlord class, go for it, I'll evaluate it on its own merit. Also include for -->Me<-- options within the Fighter, like there are now, to simulate a Warlord type build, and include Feats/Backgrounds/Skills/Specialties/Build options to make there be more than one path to most concepts.

Modules are the way to go! Find a decent baseline, then modify to your hearts content.

I only disagree with some things being mandatory or Default that don't make sense as a baseline. To ME, personally, the Apprentice Tier for instance doesn't make sense as a Default option, but is excellent as a Modular concept...I don't see hardly ANY groups using the Apprentice Tier for regular adventuring every Campaign, but rather as a One-Off or a Multiclass hack. To ME, I like the idea of starting HPs being a little higher than current packets, but not necessarily as high as 4e HPs ranged. I see a baseline of 2Maxed HD plus Con Mod, with dials to move it up or down, but if the default there is not MY method, I'm okay as I'll use the dials to change it. Just find a middle range as a better Zero point.

Everyone should compromise to even be here, nobody's going to tick every checkbox in the default game, not a single one
Want continued support for 4e, check this out, 4e Lives and Breaths

Check out MY eZine, Random Encounters Seuss (lordseussmd on YM)
It significantly reduces how much I hate him, 


If this is the attitude that you respond to legitimate attempts to accede to your wishes, why should people who want to play the Warlord care that you hate it?

If you hated the original and still hate the compromise, why compromise?

Why can't you just leave well enough alone, and just ban the Warlord at your table, and not ruin the fun of others?



Did you make the same post in response to the 4th edition fans who stated they hate races like the Elves and Gnomes?  Did you go into the Alignment threads and tell the 4th edition posters complaining about alignment restrictions the same thing?

He asked for the opinion of those who don't like the class,  I'm one of them,  I gave it.  Given the tone of your response,  I'm guessing you came into this thread looking for someone to flame.  Especially since I *highly* doubt you'd make the same statement to a 4th edition fan.

Also,  the whole "Ban him at your table" arguement is still a false one.  It still assumes that any one person has full control over everyone else,  it still ignores any and all manner of public/organized play.  I can just as easily turn your arguement around and ask how you justify telling me I can never play D&D unless I like the Warlord.

I'm getting *really* tired of the 4th edition fans telling me I'm a terrible person for not liking 4th edition and not wanting to play it.  I'd be surprised if I'm alone on that,  and I'd imagine that might have something to do with why posters keep disappearing and traffic to these boards is dropping.

Personally, I don't understand the need for this post. To me, it just sounds like "Aww what do you mean there isn't going to be a warlord anymore?"

Two of the major failings for 4th edition in my opinion:
1.  Too many damn races and classes
2. Not enough balanced, even support for all combinations

I completely agree with the notion of asking the question "Do we REALLY need the *insert class name here*?"

The warlord becoming a neutral paladin makes perfect sense to me.

The next thing that they need to fix is the question of how many arcane spellcasters do we actually need?  I mean really - Wizard, Warlock, Sorcerer...aren't these just variations of the same type of thing?

Beyond that, they might want to look at the "I can kinda cast spells" classes like the Ranger. What's the point? It would be far better to give the the "supernatural affinity to wild creatures" they had in 4th and let them keep named powers rather than get to wait until their turn to get to say "I shoot him with my longbow..." (which is the same thing he has said for the past 10 attacks).
 The healing surge mechanic or anything like it is the big hang up for me personally. Apart from that I do not really care about any class that was not in AD&D and the monk which I do not like.



Ok, I am not talking about healing surges, or so-called "hit dice". Just imagine you character gets knocked to zero (or lower, rolling with current 5e rules), and the Warlord can stabilize you and keep you from dying. Something like that. If it had no magical healing, would you have a problem with any other aspect? Like granting attacks, etc?



 Sounds like a skill check unless you are advocating to be able do this at range?

 I find the martial healing part of the warlord although keep in mind I do not like 4th ed at all and played it all of once. I do not care about te other aspects of the warlord as long as they do not bloat the class over 15 pages.

 Apart form that I want less classes though and that means around 8 or so (big 4 + Bard, Druid, Pally, Ranger). . Less is more so to speak. If there are 13, 14 + classes I am just not interested. Adding stupid pinless classes is somehting D&D has been doing since around 1985 or so with Unearthed Arcana. There are other things I dislike more than the existence of the warlord as a class in D&DN. The warlord more or less goes in the same basket as the Babarian, Monk, Sorcerer, Warlock and any other half baked silly class. At least to me. 
It significantly reduces how much I hate him, 


If this is the attitude that you respond to legitimate attempts to accede to your wishes, why should people who want to play the Warlord care that you hate it?

If you hated the original and still hate the compromise, why compromise?

Why can't you just leave well enough alone, and just ban the Warlord at your table, and not ruin the fun of others?



Did you make the same post in response to the 4th edition fans who stated they hate races like the Elves and Gnomes?  Did you go into the Alignment threads and tell the 4th edition posters complaining about alignment restrictions the same thing?

He asked for the opinion of those who don't like the class,  I'm one of them,  I gave it.  Given the tone of your response,  I'm guessing you came into this thread looking for someone to flame.  Especially since I *highly* doubt you'd make the same statement to a 4th edition fan.

Also,  the whole "Ban him at your table" arguement is still a false one.  It still assumes that any one person has full control over everyone else,  it still ignores any and all manner of public/organized play.  I can just as easily turn your arguement around and ask how you justify telling me I can never play D&D unless I like the Warlord.

I'm getting *really* tired of the 4th edition fans telling me I'm a terrible person for not liking 4th edition and not wanting to play it.  I'd be surprised if I'm alone on that,  and I'd imagine that might have something to do with why posters keep disappearing and traffic to these boards is dropping.

Personally, I don't understand the need for this post. To me, it just sounds like "Aww what do you mean there isn't going to be a warlord anymore?"

Two of the major failings for 4th edition in my opinion:
1.  Too many damn races and classes
2. Not enough balanced, even support for all combinations

I completely agree with the notion of asking the question "Do we REALLY need the *insert class name here*?"

The warlord becoming a neutral paladin makes perfect sense to me.

The next thing that they need to fix is the question of how many arcane spellcasters do we actually need?  I mean really - Wizard, Warlock, Sorcerer...aren't these just variations of the same type of thing?

Beyond that, they might want to look at the "I can kinda cast spells" classes like the Ranger. What's the point? It would be far better to give the the "supernatural affinity to wild creatures" they had in 4th and let them keep named powers rather than get to wait until their turn to get to say "I shoot him with my longbow..." (which is the same thing he has said for the past 10 attacks).



The thing is, the cat is out of the bag.  The whole point of a class based system is for there to be classes to choose from.  I do think if they are going to go the regressive avenue and withdraw classes and races, they need to examine EVERY aspect of the game, not just recent developments like the Warlord, Warlock, and Sorcerer.  If the Warlord can be eaten by the Fighter, couldn't the Rogue, Ranger, Monk, and Paladin?  I mean, at their core, they are all effectively can be summed up as "I hit the bad guy with my Longsword, Shortshord, Longbow, Fist, or Holy Avenger".  Just like the Warlock, Sorcerer and Wizard can be summed up as "I cast spells at the expense of the ability to use weapons and armor well."

The thing is, the more you limit down that sort of stuff, you eventually get into the realm of classes being "Spell Guy" and "Weapon Guy" and multiclassing and specialties creating the rest of the differences.

Additionally, what is the problem of the game allowing *your* home game to have eight classes and races, and *mine* to have all PHB1 classes and races?  5E is being professed as being the system that can do both, all with the same book.
CORE MORE, NOT CORE BORE!
I'm not interested in having to argue with players over what classes/modules are allowed in the game. Or things like Paladins of non LG alignment. I want less options not more as bloat has been a major feature of 3rd and 4th ed. 
I'm not interested in having to argue with players over what classes/modules are allowed in the game. Or things like Paladins of non LG alignment. I want less options not more as bloat has been a major feature of 3rd and 4th ed. 



Hate to break it to you, but you probably aren't going to be happy with 5E then.  And you probably aren't in the target demographic either.  WotC has already shown that they are going to have stuff like the Non-LG Paladin and options beyond the Core Four.  And it doesn't look like things are changing any time soon.
CORE MORE, NOT CORE BORE!
 Hate to break it to WoTC they probably will not be getting my money. Paizo has been via the kids. 
 Hate to break it to WoTC they probably will not be getting my money. Paizo has been via the kids. 



Right, because Pathfinder is not a bloated system.  And I, quite honestly, couldn't care less if how you spend your money.
CORE MORE, NOT CORE BORE!
If a warlord is supposed to be leading and becomes a lord of war, why is he always doing jobs that REMFs do? 

 
If a warlord is supposed to be leading and becomes a lord of war, why is he always doing jobs that REMFs do? 

 



I dunno, in the US military all doctors and nurses are commissioned officers.  Being able to heal people is a pretty big deal.
CORE MORE, NOT CORE BORE!
Anyway, this thread has made it pretty clear: A lot of people hate the warlord on general principle.

I also wanted to add something about banning things in games: In my opinion, the DM should not have sole power over what is allowed in the game. The table as a whole should be allowed to decide what is allowed in and what is not. The DM may want to make a case for not allowing something, and reasonable players should listen to the DM, but ultimately the DM should not have the final say. It's not really good practice for a DM to just unilaterally impose his own views on a group with no reason other than the fact he is DM.

The game should provide a strong variety of content, but the designers should carefully consider what is included. If a class truly does not fit the feel of the rest of the game, it might be best to exclude it, even if a small group of players wished it was there. This approach to design lets the DM feel more comfortable letting players pick what they want. When the DM starts banning things that are in the book, it introduces an awkward imbalance to the table dynamic that most DMs are right to not want to deal with. One of the reasons for having books at all is to help create a more equitable balance of power between the players and the DM. If the DM starts banning things arbitrarily, then the player no longer has anything they can count on, and the already imbalanced player/DM relationship is thrown even further off.

At the same time, it is important that popular content is not excluded simply because a small minority truly dislike it. A player or DM who is touchy enough to have their experience ruined by a player at their table playing a class they don't like needs to chill out and understand that the game is not all about them. The fact that someone wants to play a class is itself a vote for including the class in the game and at that particular table. If one of your players really wants to play a class, it is hardly ever appropriate to say no. It is usually better to be flexible and change your world/story to accomodate that player's wishes.


"So shall it be! Dear-bought those songs shall be be accounted, and yet shall be well-bought. For the price could be no other. Thus even as Eru spoke to us shall beauty not before conceived be brought into Eä, and evil yet be good to have been." - Manwë, High King of the Valar
If a warlord is supposed to be leading and becomes a lord of war, why is he always doing jobs that REMFs do? 

 



I dunno, in the US military all doctors and nurses are commissioned officers.  Being able to heal people is a pretty big deal.



It takes more that having rank to make one a combat officer that leads men into battle.

A warlord would say "Soldiers of the Crimson Empire, if we do not rush to the aid of our brothers in Wyvern Company the Queen's bridge will be taken by the orcs! Attack! Leave no orcs alive!"

A warlord does not say "Soldier, I see that you've taken an arrow to the knee, lean on me and together we'll hobble over to the shield wall so you can fight with your comrades." 

If there's going to be a warlord class, let it be a true warlord, not a bard without music as previous posters have  mentioned.

 
I also wanted to add something about banning things in games: In my opinion, the DM should not have sole power over what is allowed in the game.



I don't understand why this is a problem. Isn't this what a modular system is all about?

Isn't the whole point of D&D Next to be able to pick the things you want and exclude the things you don't want to create a certain type of game that you enjoy?
I also wanted to add something about banning things in games: In my opinion, the DM should not have sole power over what is allowed in the game.



I don't understand why this is a problem. Isn't this what a modular system is all about?

Isn't the whole point of D&D Next to be able to pick the things you want and exclude the things you don't want to create a certain type of game that you enjoy?



This is what I have been harping about for the whole damn thread!  D&D Next is supposed to be a game that we all can enjoy, that doesn't mean we all have to like the same thing.
CORE MORE, NOT CORE BORE!
I also wanted to add something about banning things in games: In my opinion, the DM should not have sole power over what is allowed in the game.



I don't understand why this is a problem. Isn't this what a modular system is all about?

Isn't the whole point of D&D Next to be able to pick the things you want and exclude the things you don't want to create a certain type of game that you enjoy?



This is what I have been harping about for the whole damn thread!  D&D Next is supposed to be a game that we all can enjoy, that doesn't mean we all have to like the same thing.




I both agree and disagree with this sentiment!

I agree that the game is modular to allow what is liked to be played and what isn't to be excluded, and I don't mind Players having a say in what they want to play as far as a campaign goes...HOWEVER...

I still believe the DM should be the sole final arbitor of what is or is not allowed in the game. What Modules they are, or are not using...and the reason why is simple:

1. The DM has to develop the stories and background of his world. That means he fits in what classes and races fit in his world view. If he is using a published setting, then the setting traditional classes/races make sense to be there, but if he's homebrewed his campaign, he should be free to decide what does or does not exist in his game.

2. The DM is the one that is going to be arbitrating the rules modules that are used, so ultimately, the DM gets to decide what level of complexity He/She wants to deal with from the guise of the referee to the system.  

Players can ask/suggest/barbain for things to be included, but the DM gets veto power...the player's power is choosing who's table to sit at or not, or to take up the shield themselves.
Want continued support for 4e, check this out, 4e Lives and Breaths

Check out MY eZine, Random Encounters Seuss (lordseussmd on YM)
The table has been removing, adding or modifying classes since the game started. But it appears that is too much to ask for when a player wants to be enabled by the rules versus making choices. Those players will be difficult no matter what is decided in any aspect of the game if it does not meet their preferences.
A Fighter, Paladin or any other class forced to take up character options just to resemble a Warlord is losing out on options to distinguish themselves from other Warlord PC's. It really isn't rocket science.
Anyone trying to limit someone else's options within a given ruleset because of their own aesthetics is just a hater. And hater's gonna hate.
D&D is like religion. People focus far too much on the differences rather than the similarities.
I'm not interested in having to argue with players over what classes/modules are allowed in the game. Or things like Paladins of non LG alignment. I want less options not more as bloat has been a major feature of 3rd and 4th ed. 



Yet you will argue with us on this forum, despite you'll probably not game with us at the table.
Before 4E, many tables had one person forced to play a Cleric, because only a Cleric was actually good at healing. A Druid was ok, but never as good and couldn't Raise Dead.

So what I hear Warlord haters saying is that 'someone has to be the Cleric'.

Any game that expects to survive and grow should be about inclusiveness. Fantasy literature is moving on and growing, influences of other genres are also affecting it. This game will not be able to gain new players of future generations if character concepts are excluded because of 'that's how it has been' reasons.
D&D is like religion. People focus far too much on the differences rather than the similarities.
I also wanted to add something about banning things in games: In my opinion, the DM should not have sole power over what is allowed in the game.



I don't understand why this is a problem. Isn't this what a modular system is all about?

Isn't the whole point of D&D Next to be able to pick the things you want and exclude the things you don't want to create a certain type of game that you enjoy?



In theory but there seems to be a large portion of the folks who are on these forums that see 5e as just a way to validate their position in the edition wars.  They are not happy unless they get to force all badwrongfun out of the game.

Many Warlord hater's will be the sort of people who think Arcane magic can never be effective at healing (temp HP only), Psionic power just shouldn't be allowed just because, and 'Martial' characters can only deal with the mundane, despite living all their life in a magically imbued world and after all, just because. So players at many tables will be left with the Druid or the Cleric. And 'someone has to be the cleric', just because and that's progress apparently.
D&D is like religion. People focus far too much on the differences rather than the similarities.
No more threads asking questions of haters please... its just a bad prod.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

What's making me hate Warlords are the posters on these boards that hawk them constantly.
I quite like the warlord class.

I've only played 4e before Next, and in 4e iirc the warlord applied a lot of temporary buffs and penalties which seemed (to me) to be a lot to remember when dming. As a player playing a warlord, I found myself quite often having to remind the dm about this buff or that bonus.

I've had similar thoughts to the OP about designing a warlord in Next, but I'm not a maths person. My gut feeling is that donating attacks/hit die/hit points/skills to other characters for an immediate use would be best, to keep things moving quickly.
I'm not interested in having to argue with players over what classes/modules are allowed in the game. Or things like Paladins of non LG alignment. I want less options not more as bloat has been a major feature of 3rd and 4th ed. 



Yet you will argue with us on this forum, despite you'll probably not game with us at the table.



 He asked a question why we hated the warlord and he got his answers. Not my fault he doesn't like them. 

 Everyone else is demanding everything under the sun. May as well put in my 2 cents for what I want. Something simple, 8 classes maybe 10, classic spells, no feats. It is not the warlord class to me that by itself is the problem but the demand for martial healing. Apart from that I do not really care about the warlord positive of negative when compared to the monk/barbarian/warlock/sorcerer. Assassin and Illusionist appear to be gone as well so it is clear not every class is going to make it. 
It significantly reduces how much I hate him, 


If this is the attitude that you respond to legitimate attempts to accede to your wishes, why should people who want to play the Warlord care that you hate it?

If you hated the original and still hate the compromise, why compromise?

Why can't you just leave well enough alone, and just ban the Warlord at your table, and not ruin the fun of others?



Did you make the same post in response to the 4th edition fans who stated they hate races like the Elves and Gnomes?  Did you go into the Alignment threads and tell the 4th edition posters complaining about alignment restrictions the same thing?


Yes, actually.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
No more threads asking questions of haters please... its just a bad prod.


Ha yeah I guess I was naive.


 He asked a question why we hated the warlord and he got his answers. Not my fault he doesn't like them. 

 


If you are referring to me, that is not the question I asked. I already know why people hate the Warlord. I was asking if all semblance of 'magic' and all ability to restore hit points were taken from the Warlord, if you still had a problem with it. Even if it was not its own class and was just a bunch of pieces under the Fighter class. In your case, your answer seems to be you prefer fewer classes, which is fine, but the question was also not "Do you want the Warlord to be a class?". I know lots of people do not want that, so there was no point asking. I am trying to see if people are cool with the attack granting piece and some sort of medical skills but not magical healing. Like being able to stabilize a dying creature, or possibly grant a save etc.

If all the parts that people complain about are taken away (martial healing, not being its own class), would people still hate it? Why?
What's making me hate Warlords are the posters on these boards that hawk them constantly.



This. 

I haven't played D&D in many, many years so I didn't even know what a Warlord was until I started following these forums.  Now I see the word "Warlord" and I just roll my eyes.

"Therefore, you are the crapper, I'm merely the vessel through which you crap." -- akaddk
Two of the major failings for 4th edition in my opinion:
1.  Too many damn races and classes
2. Not enough balanced, even support for all combinations

I completely agree with the notion of asking the question "Do we REALLY need the *insert class name here*?"

The warlord becoming a neutral paladin makes perfect sense to me.


And yet, the 4e warlord was an amazing class.  Strong, but balanced, with tons of support, enabling (4e fans - see what I did there? lulz) a unique, team-focused playstyle that no other class could come close to duplicating.

In other words, it's exactly what you should want in a class.  Only you don't want it.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition