Saving the Warlord

I created this post for people who want to try to convince WotC to put the warlord back into D&D Next.

Why do people want it out, and why couldn't it be in as an option anyway?

The way I see it, reminds of the sci-fi movie, Alien vs. Predator.  Many fans of both movies think combining the movies is just trash, and that it even ruins the franchises.  They don't want any "genuine sequels to Alien of Predator" to include the other monsters, or have the AVP movies be "canon" for the stories in the future.  Well, I would put it to the movie studio that fans of AVP have every right to want that to be canon, especially if they loved the movies and if they are what brought them to the franchises and not the other way around!  A Warlord, and 4th edition, is kind of like this, only in the gaming community.

If you came to D&D because of 4th edition, because of the warlord say, you have every right to want it to be canon in the future publications.

I feel strongly that everyone's concerns can be addressed, and that unifying the editions and every player should be paramount.
It's pretty simple. Warlord is both 4e AND has martial healing and 5e seems to want nothing to do with either if they can help it. I'd love to see it as it's own class but I can already hear the sabre rattling from some of the pre-4e fans. Wink
I initially hated the warlord being a 3.5 man myself, but over some time I have grown to love this little class. Unfortunately, I am not sure whether he should have his own class. The fighter needs a little more oomph in many's thoughts, and I recommend having a little combo.

Hey guys I'm Mr. Sword and Board, I use my expertise die for some awesome maneuvers
Hey fellas I'm Mr. Leader, I use some expertise die for some attack and defense and also point out weaknesses to allies
Sup, I'm Mr. Warlord and I show my team how to really fight effectively and as a unit.

Fighter absorbs warlord, can go full classic, half warlord, or full warlord.

I want him to stay  
You are Red/Blue!
You are Red/Blue!
That sounds like it could be a good compromise, Akoo.  I think if warlord is a full subclass at least, it may satisfy people, but I was thinking that fans will want it presented "as they know it".  I don't have a problem with the fighter being able to draw from a warlord's ability pool, but I would like the full warlord to be its own class with its own subclasses if subclasses are really going to be in the game.  Certainly it makes sense for a fighter to learn some of these abilities if he wants to, but by profession, the warlord is his own class because the abilities we're talking about have such dramatic manifestations.

@elecgraystone:

I don't think martial healing needs to go, or even be lessened, because the gaming community just has the wrong take on it right now.  There is no need to regard it as too unrealistic or making no sense, because you can attribute it to the gods who are saying they want mortals to be able to heal themselves as such even if the ones providing the healing to others aren't designated priests.  The god of war, for instance, could do this all by himself, and once you accept this philosophy, you see that the whole issue with martial healing goes out the window!  It's a question of "how can we provide these abilities, which should be there because they're wanted, yet make them less of a problem for other people and also make more sense under examination for everyone"?  If there is the will, there is the way, and all this needs to work is for the designers to take the lead and say Mike Mearls describe this in one of his articles.

Both 4th edition and martial healing, are appropriate, viable, and intelligent ways of playing D&D.
I like the Warlord because it is the only class in the history of the game whose mechanics were built around the idea of intelligence and charm being able to affect the battle WITHOUT needing to call upon magic.

Quite frankly, since the dawn of communication intelligence and the ability to sway people with one's words have been quite important aspects to win the day. Often even more important than raw physical strength.

Yet, since the very beginning, Dungeons and Dragons has pushed a narrative where if one cannot call upon mystical forces and one has even average brains or looks, it is at very best padding-- in fact, when "balancing" characters one has been punished rather severely for a mundane character having any brains or looks at all-- it meant being at least 5% worse at everything your character would attempt during 90% of the game. There just wasn't a reason to take that deal. It is the rationalization used to dock Half-Orc on its attributes twice as much as any other race in addition to giving them no racial abilities at all (whereas for the Elf and Dwarf, their racial abilities could be so great one could ignore their attributes all together).

Some sort of class that can give a mechanical advantage to their side using those attributes without needing magic or gods is an absolute MUST. But I have no faith that it can or should be made into some sort of subclass of Fighter. In fact, if Paladins, Monks, Rangers and Barbarians need to be treated as something distinctly different from the Fighter, then the Warlord/Marshal/Captain/Noble/Tactician concept most definately needs to be something distinctly different from the Fighter.

In fact, I think it needs to be made more different and unique than in 4E.  The 4E Warlord who needed to primarily rely on strength because actually using any of its abilities REQUIRED that they hit something with a strength roll prior to actually using either their Intelligence or Charisma score (and they should only raise one and dump the other entirely) ought to be a multiclass between Fighter and the class that replaces Warlord. And, yes, I have heard that later in 4E they eventually fixed this issue regarding the Warlord class, but I never stuck with it long enough to see it.

So a pure leader type would result in sort of a posh noble or princess style character, a multiclass Fighter and leader would give one the "prince charming" or "squad commander" type while a multiclass between Rogue and leader would give one a scheming diplomat or brilliant merchant style character. 

But progessor, Gygax is authoring DDN!  Everything Mearels writes is actually Gygax through a Ouija Board! ;)


I've never really liked the warlord, though I have warmed up to parts of it over time.  The visual/thematic overlap with Fighter is a problem.  Martial healing, particularly inspirational healing, is a problem if hit points EVER or even partially represent meat.  And as far as the Warlord's PR goes, being from 4e might be a problem.

Things get better when I think of Ninian, Nils, or Reyson from Fire Emblem.  Mechanically, they fill the role that was unique to Warlords (as exemplified by the "lazylord"), but thematically they are very different.  I've started to think that the Bard (rather than the fighter) should cannibalize a lot of the Warlord's stuff.

"Enjoy your screams, Sarpadia - they will soon be muffled beneath snow and ice."

 

Follow me to No Goblins Allowed

A M:tG/D&D message board with a good community and usable software

 


THE COALITION WAR GAME -Phyrexian Chief Praetor
Round 1: (4-1-2, 1 kill)
Round 2: (16-8-2, 4 kills)
Round 3: (18-9-2, 1 kill)
Round 4: (22-10-0, 2 kills)
Round 5: (56-16-3, 9 kills)
Round 6: (8-7-1)

Last Edited by Ralph on blank, 1920

Both 4th edition and martial healing, are appropriate, viable, and intelligent ways of playing D&D.

While I find it a good gaming style, there are plenty of people here that will not go near it because it's 4e or that martial healing doesn't make sense to them. That's fine but I'd really like options to let them play their way and letting me play mine. So far the options that i want are few and far between.

Both 4th edition and martial healing, are appropriate, viable, and intelligent ways of playing D&D.

While I find it a good gaming style, there are plenty of people here that will not go near it because it's 4e or that martial healing doesn't make sense to them. That's fine but I'd really like options to let them play their way and letting me play mine. So far the options that i want are few and far between.




Your words are a generous concession themselves.  However, I am only advocating that there should be options to let everyone play their way and when I've tried to say the design objectives of WotC is to provide this, I have been told that they are taking the warlord out, and that is a big deal for people.

As I say, "it's an intelligent way of playing D&D, etc.," I hope to establish a new way for everyone to think about these rules and systems.  It's possible to play the game that way, and it comes not from wishing to alienate anyone or hating earlier systems, but from "savvy with game design" and a freedom the designers deserve to make the new game how they wish.  They have creative license, but that said, it's a bold move they're making (and one in the right direction in my opinion) to try to make 5th edition the game to end all edition "wars".

The idea I am promoting is to leave bias and preferences at the door, and have confidence that the new game will provide for "all intelligent ways of playing the game" possible.  They're open to ideas, as the playtests prove more than anything else.

We have to stop thinking of Next as "defineable in any narrow sense", like saying, "Oh, it's like 4th edition".  To that I can say, "It's D&D", and it will seem to consistently be D&D for EVERY EDITION'S ARDENT FANS.  The rules and options are just "print", which shouldn't hold back or "pollute" anyone's particular expectations or demands for the game if they'll buy it and make it their system of choice.

WotC is taking a stand here, and I'd back them up.
Has anyone designed their own warlord class for 5E?
I've removed content from this thread. Trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct

You can review the Code of Conduct here: company.wizards.com/conduct

Please remember to keep your posts polite, on topic and refrain from personal attacks. You are free to disagree with one another as long as it is done in a respectful manner. 
With respect to martial and inspirational healing now, as Tevish_Szat said, "Martial healing, particularly inspirational healing, is a problem if hit points EVER or even partially represent meat."  I believe this can be addressed, and with all due respect to Hebitsuikaza, by attributing the healing to the gods and I don't see this as part of the failings of D&D that Hebit. sees.  I agree it is brilliant, and moving far forward for the game, to have warlords and intelligence and charm be so much more meaningful, but if intelligence and charm are to be capable of actual, instantaneous healing of injuries, then those effects as seen from the point of view of our characters in their world will be inexplicable without attributing it to something mystical whether it be the gods or magic (as seen as arcane magic).  From the perspective of the characters, if their words can heal like that, that is okay with me even if hit points are ever or even partially "meat" because magic and "lots and lots of divine influence" are real and all over the place already.  You could also establish that psionic abilities are responsible for the healing, and thereby keep it away from gods or magic, but psionics are still NECESSARY TO EXPLAIN THE PHENOMENON.

Now consider this, for those of you who play 4th edition and are fine with martial and inspirational healing, healing meat like traditional divine magic, your characters are also fine with it and they must see it as coming from something.  Answering that only helps the game, whatever your position, and if I had a player ask me what happened or how is that possible, I'd say that your characters' world is different than yours, and there can be different explanations you are free to think about or ask about in the game (consulting a wise man or sage).  The versimilitude is paramount at the end of the day, you see, and whatever our characters do have repercussions we should think through.
Has anyone designed their own warlord class for 5E?



WotC can be asked yet to put the warlord in, "please", and I just hope to bring to light a new perspective that can help.  I appreciate every design of the game, and I couldn't comfortably tell a fan of something they can't play that in my campaign unless there is good reason.

We have to stop thinking of Next as "defineable in any narrow sense", like saying, "Oh, it's like 4th edition".  To that I can say, "It's D&D", and it will seem to consistently be D&D for EVERY EDITION'S ARDENT FANS.  The rules and options are just "print", which shouldn't hold back or "pollute" anyone's particular expectations or demands for the game if they'll buy it and make it their system of choice.

WotC is taking a stand here, and I'd back them up.

What I want from 5e as bare minimum is the ability to play a 4e style game with it. This in line with WOTC's stated goals but has yet to manifest in any meaningfull way. I think a 5e warlord class would go a long way to changing those feelings but I don't really see that with the posts I've been seeing from the developers. Right now it's being demoted to a second class tier of sub-clases when others, like druid, paladin and ranger, get to stand on their own. I might feel different is they do a REALLY awesome job with the subclass but I'm not holding my breath.

I was just running a 2nd edition game and I told one of my players he could have any 4th edition class or race he wanted, and we'd at least try to fit it into the game and its setting.  One thing we came up with was that it would be harder to accommodate an eladrin or a deva as a PC race than to accommodate the stranger races like wilden, because including the new kinds of eladrins and devas can create confusion and take away from what we have going with those species in
2nd edition (with the Great Wheel cosmology of 2nd edition and Planescape).  The warlord and the wilden only provide something new, and I feel obligated to let people have what they love.
Has anyone designed their own warlord class for 5E?



I did it twice for previous test packets, a few others have as well. But this board gets a lot of threads, so it would be quite difficult to find them by now.

With respect to martial and inspirational healing now, as Tevish_Szat said, "Martial healing, particularly inspirational healing, is a problem if hit points EVER or even partially represent meat."  I believe this can be addressed, and with all due respect to Hebitsuikaza, by attributing the healing to the gods and I don't see this as part of the failings of D&D that Hebit. sees.  I agree it is brilliant, and moving far forward for the game, to have warlords and intelligence and charm be so much more meaningful, but if intelligence and charm are to be capable of actual, instantaneous healing of injuries, then those effects as seen from the point of view of our characters in their world will be inexplicable without attributing it to something mystical whether it be the gods or magic (as seen as arcane magic).  From the perspective of the characters, if their words can heal like that, that is okay with me even if hit points are ever or even partially "meat" because magic and "lots and lots of divine influence" are real and all over the place already.  You could also establish that psionic abilities are responsible for the healing, and thereby keep it away from gods or magic, but psionics are still NECESSARY TO EXPLAIN THE PHENOMENON.

Now consider this, for those of you who play 4th edition and are fine with martial and inspirational healing, healing meat like traditional divine magic, your characters are also fine with it and they must see it as coming from something.  Answering that only helps the game, whatever your position, and if I had a player ask me what happened or how is that possible, I'd say that your characters' world is different than yours, and there can be different explanations you are free to think about or ask about in the game (consulting a wise man or sage).  The versimilitude is paramount at the end of the day, you see, and whatever our characters do have repercussions we should think through.



If hit points represent "meat" at all, the entire concept of the game is ludicrous. One managed to kill a hundred kobolds and so now they need to be impaled twice by a broad sword before they are taken down? Kill a hundred goblins and suddenly getting chopped in half the first time doesn't affect their ability to fight whatsoever, they need to be chopped in half three times before their fighting ability is at all hampered-- which is to say they instant dropped unconscious.

If that is one's conception of what is going on, then one has already gone so deep into the realm of the unrealistic and fantastical then the unrealistic notion of being healed by someone cheering you on should hardly affect your suspension of disbelief whatsoever. It really doesn't matter how many "levels" you have-- someone can only "devastatingly mutilate" you with a weapon once before it ought to seriously hamper your fighting ability.

In short-- hit points could never have been "meat" from the word go-- and if they were, let me remind you, resting for a long enough period of time removes all wounds WITHOUT the need for modern medical treatment. Getting hit in the side of the head with a spiked mace doesn't just "go away" by resting in bed, no matter how long you sleep for. The only possible solution for this is that hit points represented stamina-- particularly stamina used to avoid serious injury, which would imaginably increase with battle experience and would cause one to collapse and be useless once it ran out. So as much as we all talk about it as "damage" the truth is that it really couldn't have been because it doesn't have the same effect on a character that actually taking damage would cause nor does recovering it require the same steps. And stamina can be increased by encouragement-- as anyone who has ever exercised with the assistance of a coach or trainer can tell you. 

Of course, it is always possible to build the class more around prevention of loss of hitpoints in the first place. After all, increasing the accuracy and damage of the party enough to drop a monster a round early is the same as healing from a whole round of the monster's attacks. And reducing the damage of 5 attacks by 4 points or increasing AC enough to prevent one attack of 20 points is quite similar to healing 20 points of damage. But that hardly seems enough, because there is another issue that needs to be addressed...

Why are there a dozen replacements for Fighters and a couple for Wizard while the Cleric (and to a lesser extent the Rogue) is held up on some sort of pedastol as an absolutely required class for every group to contain to be remotely functional? Loss and recovery of hit points is a far too large part of the game to be the domain of only a single class. We really don't need any more additional Fighters nor a subclass of Fighter, what the game needs is a functional alternative to the Cleric-- because the status quo is almost as bad as building the game with the Ranger being the sole class that can deal any decent damage to non-humanoids.

Didn't the devs already say the Warlord (or a very close equivalent) was definitely going to be in the game? I'm sure we'll see it when they're ready to release it. But they made it clear that they were trying to focus on the 4 Classic Classes first.

Please introduce yourself to the new D&D 5e forums in this very friendly thread started by Pukunui!

 

My improvements to the Ranger: A Better Beast Master Ranger.

 

Make 5e Saving Throws better using Ramzour's Six Ability Save System!

 

Lost Mine of Phandelver: || Problems and Ideas with the adventure ||  Finding the Ghost of Neverwinter Wood ||

Giving classes iconic abilities that don't break the game: Ramzour's Class Defining Ability system.

Rules for a simple non-XP based leveling up system, using the Proficiency Bonus

 

They said every PHB class would be in the game 'in some form' and used that to weasel out of a warlord class by declaring it to be a fighter build.

TBH, I saw that one coming a mile away and they certainly lived down to expectations.
I think the issue is that for core healing will not be inspirational.  Thus the Warlord is in limbo without inspirational healing.   I think the fighter covers that concept otherwise.  I'd just add abilities that do that.  I though don't prefer those abilities so if it's a subclass all the better.  

I believe they've said they will have a section on inspirational healing in the DMG.  I suspect the Warlord will be an option in the game but I am unsure about day 1.  Since the majority seem to not want inspirational healing, my guess is they will offer something after initial release that really details out this stuff.  On day one the DMG will explain how to do it in the mean time.

Personally if they provide a Warlord subclass and then the DMG provides a bunch of inspirational healing options you can add on then that would seem okay by me.  I won't use the class and due to all the war I can't even stand the name now.  But I hope those that like it can work it out.   I personally won't have it in my games.

 

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.

The warlord had two functions:
1.) Martial healing
2.) Grid control
1 has been determined to be silly. If you're wedded to it, reflavor a cleric. 2 makes no sense in light of the fact that DDN does not require gridded combat as 4e did.
I fully expect a warlord featuring grid control will appear in a supplementary gridded-combat expansion to the base game, for them as wants it.
Didn't the devs already say the Warlord (or a very close equivalent) was definitely going to be in the game? I'm sure we'll see it when they're ready to release it. But they made it clear that they were trying to focus on the 4 Classic Classes first.



Well they have said you could play a character that has a simular place in the world as the warlord does.
But they also said that the mote tactics based part of the warlord is now part of the fighter class represented by the strike command, warning shout abilities.

persoanly i think they might have split up the warlord the tactics part going to the fighter. The motivational leader part to the bard.

so the best re creation of a warlord might be a fighter/bard dual class. 
I think the warlord should be in the PHB.  I would avoid making it a core class; I don't have a problem with it being a part of the core fighter though.  I just make the warlord's healing a temporary hit point mechanic. The warlord's inspiration creates an adrenaline surge that allows you to shrug off damage temporarily.  It won't be as effective as divine healing; however, I think that is probably the best compromise between the two sides of the debate. 
The warlord had two functions: 1.) Martial healing 2.) Grid control 1 has been determined to be silly. If you're wedded to it, reflavor a cleric. 2 makes no sense in light of the fact that DDN does not require gridded combat as 4e did. I fully expect a warlord featuring grid control will appear in a supplementary gridded-combat expansion to the base game, for them as wants it.



The biggest problem lay in the wording (as is often the case).  Martial 'healing' presumes a certain definition of hp; if you use that definition, it makes perfect sense except in the use of the word 'healing'.  But under such a definition, it is best to realign that word ('healing') for both martial -and- divine classes.  Presentation (and the hp assumption).

I agree with you about the grid/grid class/supplement part (in that we'll likely see a grid control form of it arise from there).

"Lightning...it flashes bright, then fades away.  It can't protect, it can only destroy."

Has anyone designed their own warlord class for 5E?


Kinda.  Sort of as a proof of concept.

"Enjoy your screams, Sarpadia - they will soon be muffled beneath snow and ice."

 

Follow me to No Goblins Allowed

A M:tG/D&D message board with a good community and usable software

 


THE COALITION WAR GAME -Phyrexian Chief Praetor
Round 1: (4-1-2, 1 kill)
Round 2: (16-8-2, 4 kills)
Round 3: (18-9-2, 1 kill)
Round 4: (22-10-0, 2 kills)
Round 5: (56-16-3, 9 kills)
Round 6: (8-7-1)

Last Edited by Ralph on blank, 1920

Didn't the devs already say the Warlord (or a very close equivalent) was definitely going to be in the game? I'm sure we'll see it when they're ready to release it. But they made it clear that they were trying to focus on the 4 Classic Classes first.



Well they have said you could play a character that has a simular place in the world as the warlord does.
But they also said that the mote tactics based part of the warlord is now part of the fighter class represented by the strike command, warning shout abilities.

persoanly i think they might have split up the warlord the tactics part going to the fighter. The motivational leader part to the bard.

so the best re creation of a warlord might be a fighter/bard dual class. 

I think you're probably right and I can't wait to see the Bard. Not just for its potential "motivational healing" but because it's one of my favorite classes in the game!

Please introduce yourself to the new D&D 5e forums in this very friendly thread started by Pukunui!

 

My improvements to the Ranger: A Better Beast Master Ranger.

 

Make 5e Saving Throws better using Ramzour's Six Ability Save System!

 

Lost Mine of Phandelver: || Problems and Ideas with the adventure ||  Finding the Ghost of Neverwinter Wood ||

Giving classes iconic abilities that don't break the game: Ramzour's Class Defining Ability system.

Rules for a simple non-XP based leveling up system, using the Proficiency Bonus

 

This thread again? I have said in the past we should wait about the playtesting for skirmishes and mass battles. A + 1 to three allies is a thing and a +1 bonus aura area effect with a dozen of allies is other.

If I am not wrong the idea of subclass is a list of packs of class features (for all the levels). The subclass can be played like a totally different class, with all different class features..(or with ones from core class you want). A walord subclass, with a totally different list of class features can be created, there is a place, it is a interesting archetype.

A warlord subclass means players buying lots of D&D miniatures for skirmishes and mass battles.  

The warlord like all the classes needs a good balance of power, and simple and faster game mechanics to play with lots of nPCs, the henchmens and enemy squads. 

"Say me what you're showing off for, and I'll say you what you lack!" (Spanish saying)

 

Book 13 Anaclet 23 Confucius said: "The Superior Man is in harmony but does not follow the crowd. The inferior man follows the crowd, but is not in harmony"

 

"In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of." - Confucius 

This thread again? I have said in the past we should wait about the playtesting for skirmishes and mass battles. A + 1 to three allies is a thing and a +1 bonus aura area effect with a dozen of allies is other.

If I am not wrong the idea of subclass is a list of packs of class features (for all the levels). The subclass can be played like a totally different class, with all different class features..(or with ones from core class you want). A walord subclass, with a totally different list of class features can be created, there is a place, it is a interesting archetype.

A warlord subclass means players buying lots of D&D miniatures for skirmishes and mass battles.  

The warlord like all the classes needs a good balance of power, and simple and faster game mechanics to play with lots of nPCs, the henchmens and enemy squads. 



I dislike the idea of completely different features for subclasses.  That just means that the subclass is just a class that is misrepresented as a subclass.  I would rather see a pardigm shift in the developer's philosophy where a subclass gives additional options on top of the existing options.  It would eliminate, in my opinion, the need for many prestige classes, and paragon paths, and allow players to pursue their vision from first level. 
There is no reason that the Warlord need be grid-based-- any more so than the Wizard.

Just have its abilities affect a set number of allies or enemies.

Enemies are hard to hit? Use your ability that grants a bonus to attack rolls.
Enemies are using area attacks? Use your ability that grants damage reduction.
Facing a swarm? Use your ability that grants an increase to AC.
Facing a big block of hit points? Use your ability that grants a bonus to damage.
The party has more or less lost initiative? Use your ability to increase the intiative of the party starting next round.
The entire party needs to make a skill roll or suffer dire consequences? Use your ability that grants a bonus to skill rolls.

Tie these all to Intelligence and Charisma and your are set.

Of course, it is possible to give them debuffing abilities as well. Or abilities that increase multiple things, but are focused to a single character. And, of course, healing or increasing maximum hit points.

Granting bonus attacks ought to be the real hang-up, not healing. Because granting bonus attacks DOES remarkably slow the game down and makes less rational sense than increasing whatever "hit points" are. But then... does the game have opportunity attacks? If opportunity attacks are fine, then why would the ability to trigger an opportunity attack for someone who hasn't gotten one this turn not be okay? Preventing, interrupting or redirecting enemy attacks on their turn causes the same interruption to the game, perhaps even more so than granting opportunity attacks to allies.

There IS however a way around this-- the Walord activates the ability and as a result the target ally's movement rate is doubled or they attack twice on his next turn (or perhaps will get an automatic critical hit!) or enemy may not move or may not attack next turn or the target of the enemy's next attack is chosen randomly from the legal targets.

But none of this inherantly needs a grid to be able to function. There are more than enough things one can do without ever needing a grid to still justify the class.

Regardless, you cannot shove all this into the Fighter class and still have a functional Fighter class. It is at least as different as "how much damage can I personally take or do this turn?" as the Barbarian, Paladin, Monk and Ranger are. And you cannot expect the Bard who is simultaneously trying to be a replacement Rogue as well as fulfill the need for a meaningful and functional Illusionist class to be able to contain it all as well... even if the whole playing a lute in the middle of battle nonsense wasn't nauseating enough on its own.

Didn't the devs already say the Warlord (or a very close equivalent) was definitely going to be in the game? I'm sure we'll see it when they're ready to release it. But they made it clear that they were trying to focus on the 4 Classic Classes first.



Well they have said you could play a character that has a simular place in the world as the warlord does.
But they also said that the mote tactics based part of the warlord is now part of the fighter class represented by the strike command, warning shout abilities.

persoanly i think they might have split up the warlord the tactics part going to the fighter. The motivational leader part to the bard.

so the best re creation of a warlord might be a fighter/bard dual class. 

I think you're probably right and I can't wait to see the Bard. Not just for its potential "motivational healing" but because it's one of my favorite classes in the game!



And from a design point there is a advantage to using the bard.
Becouse in older editions they also left in the middel if the bonuses given from a bards performance abilities where magical or not.

So just put a line somwhere in the bard fluff text somthing like :
bards can achieve amazing effects some even say they do so by weaving magic into their performences.

So people whu want it to be magic can say it is magic based on that line, and people who don't want it to be magic can have it their way in their campaign.


Didn't the devs already say the Warlord (or a very close equivalent) was definitely going to be in the game? I'm sure we'll see it when they're ready to release it. But they made it clear that they were trying to focus on the 4 Classic Classes first.



Well they have said you could play a character that has a simular place in the world as the warlord does.
But they also said that the mote tactics based part of the warlord is now part of the fighter class represented by the strike command, warning shout abilities.

persoanly i think they might have split up the warlord the tactics part going to the fighter. The motivational leader part to the bard.

so the best re creation of a warlord might be a fighter/bard dual class. 

I think you're probably right and I can't wait to see the Bard. Not just for its potential "motivational healing" but because it's one of my favorite classes in the game!



And from a design point there is a advantage to using the bard.
Becouse in older editions they also left in the middel if the bonuses given from a bards performance abilities where magical or not.

So just put a line somwhere in the bard fluff text somthing like :
bards can achieve amazing effects some even say they do so by weaving magic into their performences.

So people whu want it to be magic can say it is magic based on that line, and people who don't want it to be magic can have it their way in their campaign.



Fight Fight Fight! Fight the evil guy!

Please introduce yourself to the new D&D 5e forums in this very friendly thread started by Pukunui!

 

My improvements to the Ranger: A Better Beast Master Ranger.

 

Make 5e Saving Throws better using Ramzour's Six Ability Save System!

 

Lost Mine of Phandelver: || Problems and Ideas with the adventure ||  Finding the Ghost of Neverwinter Wood ||

Giving classes iconic abilities that don't break the game: Ramzour's Class Defining Ability system.

Rules for a simple non-XP based leveling up system, using the Proficiency Bonus

 

The biggest problem lay in the wording (as is often the case).  Martial 'healing' presumes a certain definition of hp; if you use that definition, it makes perfect sense except in the use of the word 'healing'.  But under such a definition, it is best to realign that word ('healing') for both martial -and- divine classes.  Presentation (and the hp assumption).


The thing is, any healing, magical or not, assumes a certain definition of hit points(see:Why Cure Light Wounds can heal damage that is explicitly not wounds).

Leaving hit points and healing views up to the individual table and allowing multiple methods of healing of multiple "assumptions", it makes it easier for the game to appeal to more people.

I agree with you about the grid/grid class/supplement part (in that we'll likely see a grid control form of it arise from there).



While the grid helped, I see no reason that the Warlord can't work in theatre of the mind. Most of the Warlord's abilities that weren't healing were usually around granting attacks, charges, moving allies to up enemies, or giving thm bonuses, none of which require a grid and could be done just as easily in TotM.
With respect to martial and inspirational healing now, as Tevish_Szat said, "Martial healing, particularly inspirational healing, is a problem if hit points EVER or even partially represent meat."  


Gygax basically put off the idea that there was a "real" wound till the last stroke which took you down since you arent impaired at all that makes quite a bit of sense - but that last stroke was still there.

If you cant be inspired to ignore the wear of knicks and scratches I dont know what you can be inspired to do.... temporary hit points are unnecessary complexity.

I personally think a separate wound system for those who think attacks induce wounds to focus on is the best solution....

Then hit points can be restored by poets preists and politicians... but wounds can only be fixed by miracle workers.
 
  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."

 

Hebits, buffing and debuffing are already covered by the cleric and bard.
Hebits, buffing and debuffing are already covered by the cleric and bard.


And?
And therefore adding an entire class which simply duplicates functions already present is bad design.
And therefore adding an entire class which simply duplicates functions already present is bad design.


Except we already have classes in Next that are completely redundant with other classes being present, even moreso than a Warlord would be made.

We have to stop thinking of Next as "defineable in any narrow sense", like saying, "Oh, it's like 4th edition".  To that I can say, "It's D&D", and it will seem to consistently be D&D for EVERY EDITION'S ARDENT FANS.  The rules and options are just "print", which shouldn't hold back or "pollute" anyone's particular expectations or demands for the game if they'll buy it and make it their system of choice.

WotC is taking a stand here, and I'd back them up.

What I want from 5e as bare minimum is the ability to play a 4e style game with it.




What is 4th Ed style, to you?
Just to add my 2 cents, I'd like to see a Warlord class in D&DN, and I couldn't care less about either "martial healing" or grid and marker combat.
I created this post for people who want to try to convince WotC to put the warlord back into D&D Next.

Why do people want it out, and why couldn't it be in as an option anyway?

The way I see it, reminds of the sci-fi movie, Alien vs. Predator.  Many fans of both movies think combining the movies is just trash, and that it even ruins the franchises.  They don't want any "genuine sequels to Alien of Predator" to include the other monsters, or have the AVP movies be "canon" for the stories in the future.  Well, I would put it to the movie studio that fans of AVP have every right to want that to be canon, especially if they loved the movies and if they are what brought them to the franchises and not the other way around!  A Warlord, and 4th edition, is kind of like this, only in the gaming community.

If you came to D&D because of 4th edition, because of the warlord say, you have every right to want it to be canon in the future publications.

I feel strongly that everyone's concerns can be addressed, and that unifying the editions and every player should be paramount.



The warlord was one of the class that caught my interest when I decide to came back to D&D (I stopped playing during 2e). All I really do not care about the "canon" and I'm not married to the class. What I do care about is that the type of character I made with the 4e warlord class can be recreated in 5e. Fluff wise, I want a inspiring martial leader that isn't rooted in magic. Mechanics wise, I want to grant my actions to party members, buff and heal. If the 5e warlord doesn't have those things or options to get those things then the class/subclass becomes mostly irrelevant.

I would personally be fine with having the 4e Warlord and Ardent be merged down into one class. That way it can be chalked up to "because psionics"; thats much more palatable then "because magic."

Reality Refracted: Social Contracts

My blog of Random Stuff 

Dreaming the Impossible Dream
Imagine a world where the first-time D&D player rolls stats, picks a race, picks a class, picks an alignment, and buys gear to create a character. Imagine if an experienced player, maybe the person helping our theoretical player learn the ropes, could also make a character by rolling ability scores and picking a race, class, feat, skills, class features, spells or powers, and so on. Those two players used different paths to build characters, but the system design allows them to play at the same table. -Mearl

"It is a general popular error to suppose the loudest complainers for the publick to be the most anxious for its welfare." - Edmund Burke

Back to Product and General D&D Discussions -- because the mobile site is bad. (Fixed!)

Nobody has to do ANYTHING with the definition of Hit Points, all you need to do is have all martial healing grant Temporary Hit Points, and then specify that Temp HP represent morale or adrenaline, or whatever. Then the Warlord can inspire his allies to push past their limit, even continuing to fight with wounds that would normally knock them out, but as soon as the battle is over and the adrenaline wears off they drop like a sack of bricks. Perfectly plausible.
Nobody has to do ANYTHING with the definition of Hit Points, all you need to do is have all martial healing grant Temporary Hit Points, and then specify that Temp HP represent morale or adrenaline, or whatever. Then the Warlord can inspire his allies to push past their limit, even continuing to fight with wounds that would normally knock them out, but as soon as the battle is over and the adrenaline wears off they drop like a sack of bricks. Perfectly plausible.



I, and many others, floated that idea a -very- long time ago.  For some reason its a no-starter, though.

"Lightning...it flashes bright, then fades away.  It can't protect, it can only destroy."

I have no problem with the temp HP thing, as long as there's also an option for it to also restore regular HP, or he at least has some sort of "Field Medic" thing that lets him restore HP out of battle, or give some bonus to healing done with Hit Dice(like, when an ally spends Hit Dice to recover HP, they gain an additional +5 HP per HD spent).

My main issue is that temp HP is hard to make be able to replace regular healing, and I don't usually use temp except for..
1.Doing it on a mass scale.
2.Giving an absurd amount of temp(like a surge's worth)
3.I'm doing it as part of an action I'm going to do anyways(I have a Warlock that uses Life Forced Reclaimed, which gives me a surge's worth of temp on a hit. I'd probably use this without that rider, since it's also my most damaging single target attack, and I'm a Striker.)
4.I have nothing better to do with my action(Blackguard with no minor action attack, but I have about 3 different ways of generating temp as a minor. 1 surge worth, 2 give decent amount, in addition to a number of other buffs for a turn.)

My reasoning being that healing is reactive, granting temp is pre-emptive. Healing is never wasted because it's always down when it's needed. Temp can be wasted sicne you would have to guess who's going to need the temp more and give it to them, hoping it doesn't turn out to be wasted because the monster attacked someone else the whole fight(granting it on a mass scale gets around this since there's no guesswork, just bam, temp for everyone).
Sign In to post comments