|
1 year ago ::
Jan 12, 2012 - 10:54AM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Aug 18, 2008
|
I run older editions while as a player play in one 4E game. One of the things I loved about 4e was the Warlord.
I love the concept of a non-magical healer support class in general and the Warlord became my favored class of any edition.
I know it has some that don't like it,and for sure it didn't appear in any real form till 4E(the 3.5 one was not the same).
While I am willing to let the warlord fade away for the over all good of the game(not sure if I could ever make the Warlord fit in any other edition and so not sure at all 5E could fit them in).
I would love for a Warlord class included in core. I think I am all alone in that regards though and more than willing to conceed the field and the Warlord if it must be done.
What do you guys think? Also what are some of your class choices for 5E? Will you be willing to see them not included as well? What do you think should be core?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 12, 2012 - 4:27PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Aug 18, 2008
|
Really? I'm the only huge warlord fan?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 12, 2012 - 4:37PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2012
|
Really? I'm the only huge warlord fan?
I'm not a huge 4e person, but I love this idea too. I'd like to see the class make the cut from the 4e material.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 12, 2012 - 5:07PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Jan 12, 2012
|
I think that the Warlord is ridiculous as a core class.
A warlord is simply someone who has experience leading others in battle. So, why should my 1st-level teenage character just starting out already be a "lord" of anytihng? It makes no sense whatsoever. Being a warlord implies having experience in war above anything else, and thus it makes zero sense as a class available to early-level characters. Make the warlord a PrC or some type of advanced build/template, but it has absolutely no business being a base class in 5E.
We already have the perfect set of 10 or 11 base classes from 3E, and there is no logical justification whatsoever for adding or subtracting from that set.
If it ain't broke...
Leadership and class choice should have NOTHING to do with each other, EVER.
Conflating the two is simply horrendous game design.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 12, 2012 - 5:29PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Aug 18, 2008
|
Umm Dude,Warlord is the name of the class. Kinda like Warlock...I mean come on why would a mage have a stupid name like that? what do they know about War?
See how err challenged that statment looks? Or wait a Wizard? Come on now.
So you only arguement that has reason behind it is....Because it wasn't in 3E it has no place in 5E?
By the way 3E was just as broke as 4E. Thats why it got left behind. Now I actually mean that it indeed is not broke.Either is 4E.
Either was 2E or 1E or Classic.
Now if you had said something like. It shouldn't be a base class because it would make a third healer class and core doesn't need three. or if you had said that it shouldn't be core because as a new class it shouldn't replace any of the class's that have been standard for many editions.
Anything like that I could perhaps buy into your opinion.
as it stands though it seems like you only want to recreate 3E...and that isn't gonna happen.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 12, 2012 - 5:56PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Jan 12, 2012
|
Umm Dude,Warlord is the name of the class. Kinda like Warlock...I mean come on why would a mage have a stupid name like that? what do they know about War?
Firstly, you just touched on the fact that the Warlock is also unnecessary... it's just a type of mage, and we already had two base classes of those: an INT-based one and a CHA-based one. There is absolutely no need for another. A PrC would have made a hell of a lot more sense.
Secondly, the 'war-' part of the word 'warlord' has everything to do with war in the English language, whereas the 'war-' part of the word 'warlock' doesn't have anything whatseover to do with war. It came from the Old English term 'waerloga', which meant "oath-breaker". See the difference? A warlock is just a type of witch or wizard.
So you only arguement that has reason behind it is....Because it wasn't in 3E it has no place in 5E?
No, not at all. My argument is that for edition-after-edition there was never any need for a 'warlord' as a base class, and there isn't one now. It's extraneous and it makes no sense as a base class. I don't even like 3E very much, and I no longer play it, so that's not the point. It's just that it's the last decent D&D game released (well, 3.5E, to be exact), and so it makes the most sense for reference.
By the way 3E was just as broke as 4E. Thats why it got left behind. Now I actually mean that it indeed is not broke.Either is 4E.
Either was 2E or 1E or Classic.
Uh... what?
Again, the warlord makes no sense as a base class because it implies having experience leading others in war, and you simply can't have that kind of experience as a low-level character. On the other hand, it does make sense to be a 1st-level Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, or Rogue. They aren't lords or leaders of anything yet.
Heck, even the 4E core rulebook itself defines warlords as "accomplished and competent battle leaders". How in the world does that make sense for an inexperienced low-level character? It simply doesn't make sense in any way, shape, or form.
Leadership and class choice should have NOTHING to do with each other, EVER.
Conflating the two is simply horrendous game design.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 12, 2012 - 7:45PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Aug 18, 2008
|
edition-after-edition there was never any need for a 'warlord' as a base class
This is your opinion. I for one think diferantly. For instance in my games not one player wants to play a cleric,druid,bard or any sort of healer other than warlord.
Warlord obviously fills a need in our games that isn't covered by any other class.
Again, the warlord makes no sense as a base class because it implies having experience leading others in war, and you simply can't have that kind of experience as a low-level character
Really? You can buy Elves with pointy ears and people casting fireballs,10 ton dragons breathing fire and giant eyeballs zapping people with eyestalks zappers,People coming back from the dead and ships that fly in the sky but a young man trained in how to get fighting men to act as a team and in general tactics is just too much for your imagination eh?
The fact that a out of game label named Warlord is too far of a stretch for you right? I mean its not like in game people are walking around saying"that guy there is a level 2 Warlord and that guy is a level 1 Fighter,I am a level 3 Wizard"
Warlord is just a label.
Ok we get it. Your imagination is so limited.Cool.
I think you Bias is showing.
Also the next time you feel the need to lecture language,don't. You just come off looking snarky.
I on the other hand am actually wanting to talk about the class itself and how it should or shouldn't be included in 5e based on people knowledge of the class and how it works and how 5E will work.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 12, 2012 - 7:51PM
#8
|
|
|
Let's see here now ...
First, the name of the class is utterly irrelevant. Characters are not aware of their class. He can call himself whatever he wants. The fact that you make such a snit about it adds credence to the idea that 5e needs to get rid of classes because people get hung up on stupid details like the name.
Two, nothing says your 1st level character has to be some wet-behind-the-ears teenager. He can be 20, 30, 40, 50, 80 years old if you want.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 12, 2012 - 11:03PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Aug 17, 2007
|
I like the Warlord but I don't like that he heals. I know it can be looked at as inspiring and such, but it still irks me.
I would love the Warlord to have a mechanic that allows him to grant others the ability to avoid damage at the cost of a healing surge rather then replenish it with encouraging words. Maybe an aura that others can make use of once per encounter or some such limitation.
In any case. It is a good clas concept that I hope makes the cut.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 12, 2012 - 11:44PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Jan 12, 2012
|
This is your opinion. I for one think diferantly. For instance in my games not one player wants to play a cleric,druid,bard or any sort of healer other than warlord.
Warlord obviously fills a need in our games that isn't covered by any other class.
The ridiculous fact that the warlord is somehow also a healer in 4E only strengthens my argument. It makes no sense whatseover in the context of D&D. Maybe it makes sense in WoW or some other game setting, but I have never heard of such a thing in all my life, and I've been playing D&D since I was a little kid in the 80's.
This kind of thing is precisely what alienated so many D&D fans and cost WotC so much money with the 4E debacle to begin with. The new players care nothing about the D&D world that has existed for decades, and upon which much of the customer base has been built over the years. If the previous mythos is not restored, then 5E is already doomed.
And just exactly how does the cleric class not serve as an acceptable healer in your campaign? The cool thing about clerics is that because they can worship so many different gods, they can vary a great deal with regard to their style. If you want a battle-oriented healer, then there are specialty priests of war gods that would fit nicely. On the other hand, if you want a sneaky cleric, there are specialty priests of gods of stealth and subterfuge that would do, and so on. The possibilities are numerous, and awesome, and they are what D&D is all about.
I mean come on, how can your players not love specialty priests?
Really? You can buy Elves with pointy ears and people casting fireballs,10 ton dragons breathing fire and giant eyeballs zapping people with eyestalks zappers,People coming back from the dead and ships that fly in the sky but a young man trained in how to get fighting men to act as a team and in general tactics is just too much for your imagination eh?
This is about the canonical concepts of the world that the game is set within, and those other things you mentioned have always been a part of that world. This Warlord stuff, on the other hand, has nothing whatsoever to do with that world. It is a new concept (along with the Warlock) that simply makes no sense in D&D (at least not as a base class), and it is completely unnecessary anyway.
Also the next time you feel the need to lecture language,don't. You just come off looking snarky.
You made the erroneous suggestion that the the 'war-' part of each word meant the same thing, and I simply proved that it doesn't. Call me snarky if you want, but I was exactly right.
Leadership and class choice should have NOTHING to do with each other, EVER.
Conflating the two is simply horrendous game design.
|
|
|
