Is it possible to say the bard and warlord are the same class? Yes. Does that make a better game? No, IMHO. The warlord is martial and relies on good strategy and inspiring his friends. The bard is magical, relies on confounding his enemies and using his magic to augment his friends. Please let's design mechanics to help reinforce distinction. I loved my 4e bard, I don't want it turned into a prestige class for a rogue/wizard. I don't want it melded with a warlord to become some (any healer who isn't a cleric) class.
Well a bard can also be just as Martial as your version of the warlord. In fact, that's what the Skald was in 2e. I'd just like to see a system that can support all different types of bards and warlords.
I'm looking for core mechanics that don't enforce a subjective destinction. I'm suggesting that a common chassis for these two classes can exist. The warlord and bard both do their 'thing' with words. Communication is therefore very important for both classes. With that said, I see no reason why there can't be magical and non-magical variants for both classes.
Well a bard can also be just as Martial as your version of the warlord. In fact, that's what the Skald was in 2e. I'd just like to see a system that can support all different types of bards and warlords. I'm looking for core mechanics t
With that said, I see no reason why there can't be magical and non-magical variants for both classes.
That's what specialties are for!! You want a spellcasting warlord? Make a wizard and give him a Commander specialty.
It doesn't make sense to try to squeeze a spellcasting and nonspellcasting variant into the same class as a class is primarily a power delivery system.
As for a skald, we'l have to see how the bard is developed. In 4e, you could do it because a bard was given a mix of martial and magical powers that all worked on the same format so they were interchangeable. But in Next, spells are working on a spell memorization (i.e., fire-and-forget) system, while maneuvers are given the expertise dice, refreshing every round.
The monk actually shows us the way this could work because the monk is the first class to use both maneuvers and spells (called ki powers). If the bard has the same thing, with spells and maneuvers, then you could conceivably have a class variant who takes no spells but gets extra maneuvers.
I don't see that for the warlord, as the basic concept doesn't really accommodate the idea of spell memorization. That's why a magical warlord is better made using multiclassing or specialties.
That's what specialties are for!! You want a spellcasting warlord? Make a wizard and give him a Commander specialty.It doesn't make sense to try to squeeze a spellcasting and nonspellcasting variant into the same class as a class is primarily a pow
With that said, I see no reason why there can't be magical and non-magical variants for both classes.
That's what specialties are for!! You want a spellcasting warlord? Make a wizard and give him a Commander specialty.
It doesn't make sense to try to squeeze a spellcasting and nonspellcasting variant into the same class as a class is primarily a power delivery system.
As for a skald, we'l have to see how the bard is developed. In 4e, you could do it because a bard was given a mix of martial and magical powers that all worked on the same format so they were interchangeable. But in Next, spells are working on a spell memorization (i.e., fire-and-forget) system, while maneuvers are given the expertise dice, refreshing every round.
The monk actually shows us the way this could work because the monk is the first class to use both maneuvers and spells (called ki powers). If the bard has the same thing, with spells and maneuvers, then you could conceivably have a class variant who takes no spells but gets extra maneuvers.
I don't see that for the warlord, as the basic concept doesn't really accommodate the idea of spell memorization. That's why a magical warlord is better made using multiclassing or specialties.
well I wouldn't design the warlord with a memorization mechanic. The Monk class might be a good template for the warlord. His powers seem magical, but they work on some principle that is supernatural. I'd be fine with the warlord being a martial class, I'd just like to see powers that heal wounds to have a supernatural basis. I'm not suggesting that the warlord actually cast spells or have to memorize them. For example, the Paladin's lay on hands ability is not a spell, but it is magical.
That's what specialties are for!! You want a spellcasting warlord? Make a wizard and give him a Commander specialty.It doesn't make sense to try to squeeze a spellcasting and nonspellcasting variant into the same class as a class is primarily a pow
If you can't tell the difference between Elan from Order of the Stick and Sgt. Fury, well, I don't know what to say.
It depends on who is drawing them .... Rob Leifeld would make them both look the same, just with tiny feet and badly drawn hands.
Personally, I dont know why both the Bard and the Warlord HAVE to be "magical". What they both do is more the power of their respective personalities.
A Bard inspires through his art, weaving a tapestry that helps/hinders as he performs. A Warlord inspires/disheartens through intimidation (not the skill) and battle prowess.
Cant these be done without it being "magic" ?
It depends on who is drawing them .... Rob Leifeld would make them both look the same, just with tiny feet and badly drawn hands.Personally, I dont know why both the Bard and the Warlord HAVE to be "magical". What they both do is more the power of th
If you can't tell the difference between Elan from Order of the Stick and Sgt. Fury, well, I don't know what to say.
It depends on who is drawing them .... Rob Leifeld would make them both look the same, just with tiny feet and badly drawn hands.
Personally, I dont know why both the Bard and the Warlord HAVE to be "magical". What they both do is more the power of their respective personalities.
A Bard inspires through his art, weaving a tapestry that helps/hinders as he performs. A Warlord inspires/disheartens through intimidation (not the skill) and battle prowess.
Cant these be done without it being "magic" ?
I agree, those actions (which are based on communication) can be non-magical.
But once you want play the Celtic bard that heals with a song or the warlord that heals wounds, magic must enter the picture for some playstyles. Of course, that largely depends on your definition of what hit points are.
The problem is that no one agrees on what hit points are, the mechanism that bard and the warlord use to heal wounds is different for every playstyle. So far the designers have recognized this problem with D&D Next optional resting rules, I just hope they continue with those options when they design the bard and warlord healing powers.
It depends on who is drawing them .... Rob Leifeld would make them both look the same, just with tiny feet and badly drawn hands.Personally, I dont know why both the Bard and the Warlord HAVE to be "magical". What they both do is more the power of th
well I wouldn't design the warlord with a memorization mechanic. The Monk class might be a good template for the warlord. His powers seem magical, but they work on some principle that is supernatural. I'd be fine with the warlord being a martial class, I'd just like to see powers that heal wounds to have a supernatural basis.
I'd prefer that the warlord's "healing" grant temporary hit points and be described not as healing but as motiva5ting people to ignore the pain. Totally nonmagical.
I'm not suggesting that the warlord actually cast spells or have to memorize them. For example, the Paladin's lay on hands ability is not a spell, but it is magical.
We have yet to see how lay on hands will be implemented as we have no Next version of the paladin. Based on the monk, I might surmise that the paladin will be given expertise dice which he can use for his at-will powers like detect evil and smite and then also be given spell memorization for his daily abilities, which may include an option to spontaneously convert any spell into a lay on hands healing.
I'd prefer that the warlord's "healing" grant temporary hit points and be described not as healing but as motiva5ting people to ignore the pain. Totally nonmagical.We have yet to see how lay on hands will be implemented as we have no Next version of
well I wouldn't design the warlord with a memorization mechanic. The Monk class might be a good template for the warlord. His powers seem magical, but they work on some principle that is supernatural. I'd be fine with the warlord being a martial class, I'd just like to see powers that heal wounds to have a supernatural basis.
I'd prefer that the warlord's "healing" grant temporary hit points and be described not as healing but as motiva5ting people to ignore the pain. Totally nonmagical.
I'm not suggesting that the warlord actually cast spells or have to memorize them. For example, the Paladin's lay on hands ability is not a spell, but it is magical.
We have yet to see how lay on hands will be implemented as we have no Next version of the paladin.
The clerics turn undead ability was a spell and now it isn't. I'd expect the same for the paladin.
As for temp hit points, we do have the spell Aid.
I'd prefer that the warlord's "healing" grant temporary hit points and be described not as healing but as motiva5ting people to ignore the pain. Totally nonmagical.We have yet to see how lay on hands will be implemented as we have no Next version of
The clerics turn undead ability was a spell and now it isn't. I'd expect the same for the paladin.
As for temp hit points, we do have the spell Aid.
We'll see. We've gotten very far afield. But from what I gather, your position on warlords is as follows:
You claim that you think a warlord can be included. Yet... You don't want any healing powers to be included except as a spell, even temporary hp You don't think any action granting powers will be included in Next You don't think any movement granting powers will be included in Next
Since you've eliminated all the warlord's signature abilities, except the relatively minor quality of granting flat bonuses, and that's what bards primarily do, the warlord should be folded into the bard (who can be allowed to use magical healing).
Whcih is why i don't think you actually want a warlrod to be included. You don't want (or can't imagine) any of the warlord's distinguishing mechanics -- the ones that make the warlord distinct from bards and clerics -- to be included in the game. When you strip down what you would personally accept, we're left with a non-singing skald.
But I don't accept that the loss of martial healing, as long as it is in the form of temporary hit points. I don't accept the loss of action and movement granting powers. So my vision of a warlord does not look like a non-singing skald. It looks like a warlord.
We'll see. We've gotten very far afield. But from what I gather, your position on warlords is as follows:You claim that you think a warlord can be included. Yet...You don't want any healing powers to be included except as a spell, even temporary h
The clerics turn undead ability was a spell and now it isn't. I'd expect the same for the paladin.
As for temp hit points, we do have the spell Aid.
We'll see. We've gotten very far afield. But from what I gather, your position on warlords is as follows:
You claim that you think a warlord can be included. Yet... You don't want any healing powers to be included except as a spell, even temporary hp You don't think any action granting powers will be included in Next You don't think any movement granting powers will be included in Next
Since you've eliminated all the warlord's signature abilities, except the relatively minor quality of granting flat bonuses, and that's what bards primarily do, the warlord should be folded into the bard (who can be allowed to use magical healing).
Whcih is why i don't think you actually want a warlrod to be included. You don't want (or can't imagine) any of the warlord's distinguishing mechanics -- the ones that make the warlord distinct from bards and clerics -- to be included in the game. When you strip down what you would personally accept, we're left with a non-singing skald.
But I don't accept that the loss of martial healing, as long as it is in the form of temporary hit points. I don't accept the loss of action and movement granting powers. So my vision of a warlord does not look like a non-singing skald. It looks like a warlord.
no that's not what I think
You claim that you think a warlord can be included. Yet...
I never said it couldn't.
You don't want any healing powers to be included except as a spell, even temporary hp
I don't want healing to be non-supernatural in nature. The game must respect all playstyles. Therefore, any warlord that heals without the aid of magic or some other supernatural force is playstyle specific and invalid in the core. As an optional class it's fine however.
You don't think any action granting powers will be included in Next
I don't think that your mechanical (4e concept) of what a Warlord is will be the same in next.
You don't think any movement granting powers will be included in Next
Never said that.
You define the warlord as a class that grants extra actions and movement. That's fine. I'm not arguing that. You define the bard as class that grants bonuses. The problem with your argument is that they both grant bonuses, extra actions, and movement in 4e. They are still built on the same chassis. They might have different goals/ styles, but they share a common root, which is what my original post was all about. They both use words to do X. Your argument is like saying that the Abjurer shouldn't be a wizard because the Enchanter does something completely different. The fact is, I could create a base class called Wordmaster and derive the bard and the warlord from it. In fact, I could derive all sorts of concepts for the bard and the warlord. The warlord and bard might not even be a base class to begin with. In addition, some concepts could be playstyle specific or contain optional rules to support each playstyle.
The point is, I dont' really care what powers the warlord is granted or how those powers function. All I'm saying is that if those powers cross the line of being supernatural then they should be supernatural, and gamist concepts that cater to one playstyle in particular shouldn't be forced on everyone.
Lastly, I don't accept martial healing as a concept to being with. Therefore any class that has martial healing (non-supernartual / non-magical) is unacceptable for my playstyle.
We'll see. We've gotten very far afield. But from what I gather, your position on warlords is as follows:You claim that you think a warlord can be included. Yet...You don't want any healing powers to be included except as a spell, even temporary h
I've stated this previously, though it bears repeating: all of the overlap issues with regard to the warlord and bard can be traced back to the insistence upon the shared term 'inspiration'.
The bard has been inspiring his allies to be bigger and better at what they do for decades, so leave him alone and let him keep his stuff. The 'charismatic hero' bit is covered. The warlord has been offering his tactical insight and strategic ingenuity since his debut, and it's the only truly unique thing he does, so emphasize it and run with it. There's plainly unclaimed space for the 'intelligent hero with a weapon' bit.
We keep on this whole 'charisma-based commander/leader of people/intimdating' racket and this debate will never end (ever). The warlord is a tactician. That much is his and his alone. Those fond of warlords are being presented with a wonderful opportunity to differentiate, define, and mold a class that has uncontested reason for existing. -- Choose your battles.
If you would like your tactical genius to also be charismatic, the game fully accomodates this, but the warlord should be first and foremost a class of genius ingenuity and tactical prowess. His allies may listen to him because he's an effective leader (CHA), because he has a deep sense for the spirit of combat (WIS), or because he exemplifies his knowledge with physicality (CON/STR/DEX), but the reason they trust him is due to the fact that he understands what they don't (INT).
The core warlord should reference inspiration as a tertiary capability (if at all), lest he forever bear the prejudice of being a 'bard without the lute and magic' who's reason for existence requires endless defending in sour internet threads.
I've stated this previously, though it bears repeating: all of the overlap issues with regard to the warlord and bard can be traced back to the insistence upon the shared term 'inspiration'.The bard has been inspiring his allies to be bigger and bett
Yes, both of these 'word master' classes do share some similarities.
It seems like CS dice are common framework for fighting types (even rogues). It would be nice if a common framework was built for these clases too.
@mrpopstarYes, both of these 'word master' classes do share some similarities. It seems like CS dice are common framework for fighting types (even rogues). It would be nice if a common framework was built for these clases too.
You don't want any healing powers to be included except as a spell, even temporary hp
I don't want healing to be non-supernatural in nature.
That's what I wrote!!!
The game must respect all playstyles. Therefore, any warlord that heals without the aid of magic or some other supernatural force is playstyle specific and invalid in the core.
That's nto how modularity works and if you continue to carry this misconception with you, you are inevitably going to be disappointed and connfused by how Next is shaping up.
Each maneuver is a modular options. If the warlord has the option of healing, you can disallow those options in your game. Simply tell someone that they cannot take the warlord maneuvers that allow healing. Just like how someone who doesn't like how the fighter's parry works (which was an actual complaint) can disallow that menuver in the game. Since maneuvers are all modular options, it's easy to disallow them.
That way, the warlord can be martial and have healign, and you can still allow the class in your game by disallowing those options you don't like. Everyone wins.
You don't think any movement granting powers will be included in Next
Never said that.
you specifically said action granting would not be in Next. Movement is a type of action.
The problem with your argument is that they both grant bonuses, extra actions, and movement in 4e.p
That's not a problem with the argument. It's a problem that you simply have almost no experience in 4e so when ppeople point stuff out you fundamentally don't understand it.
Warlords had very few flat-bonus powers. So saying that warlords grant bonuses is only true in the most hypertechnical sense and completely ignores what the class is about. It is only an argument that makes sense to someone who is arguing from their conclusions.
They are still built on the same chassis.
Every class in 4e was built on the same chassis. There fore, this cannot be the basis of any valuid argument.
The fact is, I could create a base class called Wordmaster and derive the bard and the warlord from it.
The fact is we can all do a lot of things that don't make any logical sense. That you can do something is not evidence of why doing it is a good idea. You keep retreating to this enormously vacuous statements whenever you provide specific because your specific are awful and irrational. SAnd when pointed out you just retreat into that turtle shell of looking at classes from the wrong en of a spyglass and declaring they all look like dots to you.
I dont' really care what powers the warlord is granted or how those powers function.
That's clearly untrue, since your entire position is framed from your distaste of martial healing and your disbelief that Next will contain action-granting powers. If you didn't care, then this wouldn't be an issue in any way. But you started a whoel thread based on this issue!
Lastly, I don't accept martial healing as a concept to being with. Therefore any class that has martial healing (non-supernartual / non-magical) is unacceptable for my playstyle.
So disallow all martial healign powers. That's how modularity works. It's not a veto on an entire class. It's much more granular thatn that.
But I suspect that's unacceptable to you because you're using your distaste for martial healing as a stalking horse to dismantle the warlord entirely.
I don't want healing to be non-supernatural in nature.[/quote]That's what I wrote!!!That's nto how modularity works and if you continue to carry this misconception with you, you are inevitably going to be disappointed and connfused by how Next is sha
I don't think that your mechanical (4e concept) of what a Warlord is will be the same in next.
This, right here, sums it up; and I largely agree.
The warlord, as we know and love him, is purely a mechanical construct that epitomizes everything 'good' about 4E and has a storytime skin laid over it. It's the great conceit of the edition that the warlord is marvelous, and that he's marvelous solely because he plays with all of the toys made available by the premise of the edition.
It's deeply interesting to me that the bard, who's been a victim of nearly every edition, existing in a game that could only define the effect of weapon-focused heroes, spell-focused heroes, and skill-focused heroes, who suffered greatly for lack of an identity and cohesive contribution for 30+ years, is so easily compared to the best-supported, most-clearly defined, posterchild of an edition that lasted less than 4. The lucid parameters through which support classes (Leaders) could now contribute did unprecedented good for the game. The bard class is an unsung success in 4E (uncharacteristically overshadowed by the new shiney by the time he got his due).
The conversation we should be having is one pertinent to the ways in which DDN will support these heroes in light of the playtest's current structure. I anticipate them becoming largely feature-dependent, with defining ways of interacting with the spell and/or maneuver systems.
This, right here, sums it up; and I largely agree.The warlord, as we know and love him, is purely a mechanical construct that epitomizes everything 'good' about 4E and has a storytime skin laid over it. It's the great conceit of the edition that the
Yes, both of these 'word master' classes do share some similarities.
Let the bard create a pool of XD with his music that allies can draw upon when taking an action (a la the 4E skald). Let the warlord spend XD in response to situations as they present themselves during enemy actions (i.e. enemy misses with an attack and warlord can expend XD to offer targeted ally an action, etc.) or ally advantages (i.e. ally gains advantage and warlord can expend XD to offer ally a rider on their action, etc.).
In these ways, the singing/orating/speaking bard is the 'word master' (as he's always been), and the warlord contributes via his interaction with the battle (using words, gestures, attacks, etc.). If you take away the whole 'warlord is inspiring me to do stuff' thing, the awkward 'word master' moniker no longer applies.
It seems like CS dice are common framework for fighting types (even rogues). It would be nice if a common framework was built for these clases too.
A common framework would only contribute to more sameness.
Let the bard create a pool of XD with his music that allies can draw upon when taking an action (a la the 4E skald).Let the warlord spend XD in response to situations as they present themselves during enemy actions (i.e. enemy misses with an attack a
The bard makes sense as a "Jack-of-All-Trades" archetype, equally emphasizing combat, skills, RP, and world-changing magics.
If the game should (merciful Buddha, hear my plea) return to a condition in which there's actually some differentiation between the classes, and we dump this "BALANCE!" nonsense, then the Bard may actually become useful and interesting again.
For the Warlord, of course, there is no excuse outside of a post 10th-level prestige class.
The bard makes sense as a "Jack-of-All-Trades" archetype, equally emphasizing combat, skills, RP, and world-changing magics. If the game should (merciful Buddha, hear my plea) return to a condition in which there's actually some differentiation betw
The bard makes sense as a "Jack-of-All-Trades" archetype, equally emphasizing combat, skills, RP, and world-changing magics.
Of course, post 4E, the BALANCE UBER ALLES crew have, sadly, made such an archetype unnecessary, since they think that thieves, fighters, mages, etc. should *ALL* be equally proficient at everything, all the time. Under the circumstances, everyone's a bard now.
If the game should (merciful Buddha, hear my plea) return to a condition in which there's actually some differentiation between the classes, and we dump this "BALANCE!" nonsense, then the Bard may actually become useful and interesting again.
For the Warlord, of course, there is no excuse outside of a post 10th-level prestige class.
The nightmare balance design constraint is one of the primary reasons I do not want 4e and 5e
The nightmare balance design constraint is one of the primary reasons I do not want 4e and 5e
The bard makes sense as a "Jack-of-All-Trades" archetype, equally emphasizing combat, skills, RP, and world-changing magics.
*deleted*
If the game should (merciful Buddha, hear my plea) return to a condition in which there's actually some differentiation between the classes, and we dump this "BALANCE!" nonsense, then the Bard may actually become useful and interesting again.
For the Warlord, of course, there is no excuse outside of a post 10th-level prestige class.
The nightmare balance design constraint is one of the primary reasons I do not want 4e and 5e
...still don't understand why you insist on contributing here and shaping the outcome of a game you have no intention of playing.
The nightmare balance design constraint is one of the primary reasons I do not want 4e and 5e[/quote]...still don't understand why you insist on contributing here and shaping the outcome of a game you have no intention of playing. :confused:
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.
I've removed content from this thread. Trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of ConductYou can review the Code of Conduct here: company.wizards.com/conductPlease remember to keep your posts polite, on topic and refrain from personal attacks. Yo
With the exception of 4e, the bard has primarily been a rogue-type character, with "leader" as a minor secondary trait or constrained to specific sub-builds.
The Warlord is leader primary, leader secondary, leader all the way down.
They are highly distinct both as archetypes and as mechnical constructs, with their only overlap being the Skald, which should probably be folded into the warlord.
To answer the OP's question: No. Not at all.With the exception of 4e, the bard has primarily been a rogue-type character, with "leader" as a minor secondary trait or constrained to specific sub-builds.The Warlord is leader primary, leader secondary,
A common framework would only contribute to more sameness.
That's true, but sometimes it is acceptable. Specialist wizards and specialty priests are great examples. They are not different enough to warrant a class, but they do make great specialists. Is the bard a specialist warlord or vice versa? Is he a specialist wizard/rogue?
Even Mearls and Crawford were arguing about the bard and the warlord in their last interview. They are trying to rationalize the role of both classes in the game. I just don't want to see the game suffer from needless class bloat and for that reason I encourage their efforts. I'm glad they are thinking about these things.
That's true, but sometimes it is acceptable. Specialist wizards and specialty priests are great examples. They are not different enough to warrant a class, but they do make great specialists. Is the bard a specialist warlord or vice versa? Is
Even Mearls and Crawford were arguing about the bard and the warlord in their last interview. They are trying to rationalize the role of both classes in the game. I just don't want to see the game suffer from needless class bloat and for that reason I encourage their efforts. I'm glad they are thinking about these things.
Me too! The fact they ARE wrestling with these concepts is a good thing, it means they arent taking it lightly and that they may be just as torn over how to work this out as the fanbase is. The result - we may just get something really cool out of it
Me too! The fact they ARE wrestling with these concepts is a good thing, it means they arent taking it lightly and that they may be just as torn over how to work this out as the fanbase is. The result - we may just get something really cool out of it
But once you want ... the warlord that heals wounds, magic must enter the picture for some playstyles.
I don't get it. Non-magical healing with a word or two is observed fact in the real world. So why does it have to be magical in fantasy?
(Granted, it doesn't actually heal wounds in the real world. But it does raise people from unconsciousness, and give people the strength and will to continue on in spite of wounds. And in D&D there is no point where the loss of HP absolutely unconditionally means wounds and cannot be refluffed. A bard who reduces a guard to negative HP via Vicious Mockery possibly persuaded him to abandon his post and run off.)
But once you want ... the warlord that heals wounds, magic must enter the picture for some playstyles. I don't get it. Non-magical healing with a word or two is observed fact in the real world. So why does it have to be magical in fantasy?(Granted, i
That's true, but sometimes it is acceptable. Specialist wizards and specialty priests are great examples. They are not different enough to warrant a class, but they do make great specialists.
Is the bard a specialist warlord or vice versa? Is he a specialist wizard/rogue?
The bard is neither, has never been either, and the very recent addition of the warlord does not promote the bard being either.
Even Mearls and Crawford were arguing about the bard and the warlord in their last interview. They are trying to rationalize the role of both classes in the game. I just don't want to see the game suffer from needless class bloat and for that reason I encourage their efforts. I'm glad they are thinking about these things.
It occured to me that they were trying to rationalize the role of the warlord given the existence of the bard (meaning, the addition of the warlord creates an interesting conversation about the bard's assumed purview), but I agree that their critical thinking is a boon to the game.
The bard is neither, has never been either, and the very recent addition of the warlord does not promote the bard being either. It occured to me that they were trying to rationalize the role of the warlord given the existence of the bard (meaning, t
As for the warlord, for my playstyle that class will also need magic to heal. I really only like using the hard core healing rules in 5e and for that reason the warlord class just won't work if it doesn't use magic.
So you want the class gone because it doesn't fit your playstyle? What about those of us for whom martial healing works just fine? What about those who find the Cleric class lacking? It has no genre roots, and the idea of calling upon divine miracles in every fight, then lazing about for 8 hours to get them back can be seen as pretty absurd. A lot more absurd than a strong leader's words inspiring a wounded or discouraged ally to get back up and fighting. The Warlord is a wonderful alternative to the Cleric for many campaigns.
And what is this so-called "playstyle" of yours, beyond anti-4e edition warring?
Stop trying to take the Warlord away from it's fans out of spite. You hated 4e. You're glad it's dead. Fine. Next is supposed to be for everyone, not a further chance for you take reprisals agsainst those who enjoyed a game you conceived a prejudice against.
No don't take me the wrong way. I don't want to see the warlord dead.
I'm going to reply to your first post, where you try to make the point that the Warlord and Bard should be folded into some other class.
I just have a different idea of what the warlord is. And yes I reject martial healing because it doesn't fit with my playstyle. That statement however, shouldn't make you feel threatened.
Again, what is this "playstyle" beyond hating 4e and hating the Warlord for being in 4e? And, how is it you feel threatened by the prospect of having "playstyles" that do call for martial healing included in the game?
I'm not saying that your playstyle is any less valid than mine.
That's exactly what you're saying. You're saying there shouldn't be a Warlord in the game for me to play. You're saying that I shouldn't be able to play a martial character who heals, or who has daily exploits to manage and use tactically. You're not only saying it's less valid, you're demanding it be banned from D&D Next, the edition that's trying to be for everyone.
I'm starting to get the impression that the warlord is a sacred class that can't be altered and must remain playstyle specific. All I'm saying is that you can't inject the warlord (that fits your playstyle) into the core of the system and expect people to accept it. If you do that then you are forcing your playstyle on everyone else and that just isn't fair at all.
Rejecting the Warlord and removing it from core is forcing your playstyle on everyone else. D&D Next is supposed to be everyone's D&D. That includes people who like the old days, when casters forgot spells when they cast them, so some casters are going to work that way in D&D Next, and those who don't like them simply don't have to use them. That includes people who like the new Warlord, that heals and has interesting powerful abilities that it can only access so often, and those who don't like it simply don't have to use it.
I simply want to be able to play a Warlord, I'm not forcing you to play a Warlord or run a game where Warlords are allowed. There's nothing unfair about what I want. I'm signed on to the D&D Next vision. I want you to be able to play whatever you want. But, I don't know what that is, because all you seem to want to talk about is what you want to take away from others.
If WotC is serious about their vision for D&D Next, they won't listen to you.
So you want the class gone because it doesn't fit your playstyle? What about those of us for whom martial healing works just fine? What about those who find the Cleric class lacking? It has no genre roots, and the idea of calling upon divine mirac
As for the warlord, for my playstyle that class will also need magic to heal. I really only like using the hard core healing rules in 5e and for that reason the warlord class just won't work if it doesn't use magic.
So you want the class gone because it doesn't fit your playstyle? What about those of us for whom martial healing works just fine? What about those who find the Cleric class lacking? It has no genre roots, and the idea of calling upon divine miracles in every fight, then lazing about for 8 hours to get them back can be seen as pretty absurd. A lot more absurd than a strong leader's words inspiring a wounded or discouraged ally to get back up and fighting. The Warlord is a wonderful alternative to the Cleric for many campaigns.
And what is this so-called "playstyle" of yours, beyond anti-4e edition warring?
Stop trying to take the Warlord away from it's fans out of spite. You hated 4e. You're glad it's dead. Fine. Next is supposed to be for everyone, not a further chance for you take reprisals agsainst those who enjoyed a game you conceived a prejudice against.
No don't take me the wrong way. I don't want to see the warlord dead.
I'm going to reply to your first post, where you try to make the point that the Warlord and Bard should be folded into some other class.
I just have a different idea of what the warlord is. And yes I reject martial healing because it doesn't fit with my playstyle. That statement however, shouldn't make you feel threatened.
Again, what is this "playstyle" beyond hating 4e and hating the Warlord for being in 4e? And, how is it you feel threatened by the prospect of having "playstyles" that do call for martial healing included in the game?
I'm not saying that your playstyle is any less valid than mine.
That's exactly what you're saying. You're saying there shouldn't be a Warlord in the game for me to play. You're saying that I shouldn't be able to play a martial character who heals, or who has daily exploits to manage and use tactically. You're not only saying it's less valid, you're demanding it be banned from D&D Next, the edition that's trying to be for everyone.
I'm starting to get the impression that the warlord is a sacred class that can't be altered and must remain playstyle specific. All I'm saying is that you can't inject the warlord (that fits your playstyle) into the core of the system and expect people to accept it. If you do that then you are forcing your playstyle on everyone else and that just isn't fair at all.
Rejecting the Warlord and removing it from core is forcing your playstyle on everyone else. D&D Next is supposed to be everyone's D&D. That includes people who like the old days, when casters forgot spells when they cast them, so some casters are going to work that way in D&D Next, and those who don't like them simply don't have to use them. That includes people who like the new Warlord, that heals and has interesting powerful abilities that it can only access so often, and those who don't like it simply don't have to use it.
I simply want to be able to play a Warlord, I'm not forcing you to play a Warlord or run a game where Warlords are allowed. There's nothing unfair about what I want. I'm signed on to the D&D Next vision. I want you to be able to play whatever you want. But, I don't know what that is, because all you seem to want to talk about is what you want to take away from others.
If WotC is serious about their vision for D&D Next, they won't listen to you.
I can't believe that you think that asking for my playstyle to be supported is akin to edition waring. You must also think that Mearls and Crawford are edition waring for reconsidering the role of the bard and the warlord.
I'm not threatened by your playstyle I just want the core to be playstyle independent or at the very least provide options. The inclusion of martial healing is a contentious issue, you must accept that truth, and having it as an option does not invalidate your playstyle.
I think you have latched on the warlord (4e style) as a litmus test for the entire 5e system. If the system doesn't include it as a core class you'll most likely just abandon 4e completely.
So you want the class gone because it doesn't fit your playstyle? What about those of us for whom martial healing works just fine? What about those who find the Cleric class lacking? It has no genre roots, and the idea of calling upon divine mirac
Depending on how you view the concept of the bard and the warlord, is it not possible that they share a common base class/archtype?
Both have been described in D&D as leaders that improve morale and make use of healing.
The Bard has been around since AD&D. Which class do you think would go away if your idea were taken to heart?
None of them. I never suggested that the warlord be removed, that's your assumption.
My suggestion is that they might share a "common base class/archtype". With that in mind there might be a way to clean up the design and make the classes more modular. One suggestion that I made previously was that we could have a wordmaster class from which both classes can be derived from. You might be able to view the bard and the warlord as two sides of the same coin.
The Bard has been around since AD&D. Which class do you think would go away if your idea were taken to heart?[/quote]None of them. I never suggested that the warlord be removed, that's your assumption. My suggestion is that they might share a "co
I simply want to be able to play a Warlord, I'm not forcing you to play a Warlord or run a game where Warlords are allowed. There's nothing unfair about what I want. I'm signed on to the D&D Next vision. I want you to be able to play whatever you want. But, I don't know what that is, because all you seem to want to talk about is what you want to take away from others.
If WotC is serious about their vision for D&D Next, they won't listen to you.
I can't believe that you think that asking for my playstyle to be supported is akin to edition waring.
For the third time, what is this "playstyle" of yours?
Why is it so intolerant of other people having classes they like available? How does including a Warlord in the Next Player's Handbook hurt it? No one can force you to play a Warlord. No one can force you to include the Warlord when you run a game. You are a DM, right?
"Supporting your playstyle" seems to be nothing more than cutting anything that appeared in 4e. That seems "akin to edtion warring," yes.
If your playstyle really requires that others be unable to play the characters they want, it's not just akin to edition warring, it's worse than edition warring.
The inclusion of martial healing is a contentious issue, you must accept that truth.
I accept that you choose to try to make it a contentious issue. I don't think it's mere inclusion should be contentious in Next, though. D&D Next can't achieve it's goal by listening to the demands of people like you, who want to exclude the things that other people love about D&D from D&D Next out of spite.
D&D Next is supposed to have something for everyone. That will give it lots of great stuff to work with, and those that don't like something (such as martial healing) can simply decline to use it.
It can't be "something excluded for everyone" because that would leave it with nothing.
I think you have latched on the warlord (4e style) as a litmus test for the entire 5e system. If the system doesn't include it as a core class you'll most likely just abandon 4e completely.
The Warlord is my favorite class from the current version of D&D. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect to see it in D&D Next. The D&D for everyone who's ever liked D&D. I'm not sure why you think I'd "abandon 4e," though. I'm planning on playing Next, however it turns out. I assume that the games I play in are going to migrate to it. That'll mean abandoning 4e when the time comes, I suppose. But, I'd hate to have to abandon the Warlord. As it is, I have to get my Warlord characters in under the "DM fun clause" at Encounters.
Everyone has something they liked in a past edition that they want to see in D&D Next. It would be great if everyone got everything they wanted, but obviously, there are space considerations. The plan they have so far, to include every class that appeared in a PH1 sounds like a good one. If your favorite class was in the initial run of your favorite version of the game, it should be in the initial run of Next. If you had to wait for your new class or it was an option in an appendix somewhere, you shouldn't mind waiting a bit or having it labeled 'optional.'
Seems very fair to me.
I can't believe that you think that asking for my playstyle to be supported is akin to edition waring.[/quote]For the third time, what is this "playstyle" of yours? Why is it so intolerant of other people having classes they like available? How doe
I think you have latched on the warlord (4e style) as a litmus test for the entire 5e system. If the system doesn't include it as a core class you'll most likely just abandon 4e completely.
I am respond assume you meant abandon 5e, So correct me if I'm wrong.
I can't speak for Ed, but I would say this statement is somewhat accurate for me. The language is stronger then I would use, because I would not abandon 5e because warlord isn't exactly as it was in 4e. If changes happen because the game is simplified and streamlined I'm all for keeping those elements. Removal of interesting elements of the class to placate people who will not make use of it no matter what form it takes just won't sit well with me. A class that is a shell of what I come to expect would be worse than not having it at all. Additionally, if the developers make that kind of decision at the end of the playtest process it would be a strong indicator for me making my decision.
I am respond assume you meant abandon 5e, So correct me if I'm wrong. I can't speak for Ed, but I would say this statement is somewhat accurate for me. The language is stronger then I would use, because I would not abandon 5e because warlord isn't ex
I think you have latched on the warlord (4e style) as a litmus test for the entire 5e system. If the system doesn't include it as a core class you'll most likely just abandon 4e completely.
I am respond assume you meant abandon 5e, So correct me if I'm wrong.
I can't speak for Ed, but I would say this statement is somewhat accurate for me. The language is stronger then I would use, because I would not abandon 5e because warlord isn't exactly as it was in 4e. If changes happen because the game is simplified and streamlined I'm all for keeping those elements. Removal of interesting elements of the class to placate people who will not make use of it no matter what form it takes just won't sit well with me. A class that is a shell of what I come to expect would be worse than not having it at all. Additionally, if the developers make that kind of decision at the end of the playtest process it would be a strong indicator for me making my decision.
yes I did mean 5e.
My only suggestion is that the warlord class has options to play it differently. Some might want martial healing to be magical and others won't. Of course, my idea of magical healing doesn't require the warlord to cast spells either. I'm also not suggesting that the warlord be limited to one playstyle or the other. I can't see how that wouldn't make everyone happy. The designers had no choice to fix the resting rules for that very reason and include options. I therefore see no reason why the same wouldn't be true for the warlord class either.
I am respond assume you meant abandon 5e, So correct me if I'm wrong. I can't speak for Ed, but I would say this statement is somewhat accurate for me. The language is stronger then I would use, because I would not abandon 5e because warlord isn't ex
I think you have latched on the warlord (4e style) as a litmus test for the entire 5e system. If the system doesn't include it as a core class you'll most likely just abandon 4e completely.
I am respond assume you meant abandon 5e, So correct me if I'm wrong.
I can't speak for Ed, but I would say this statement is somewhat accurate for me. The language is stronger then I would use, because I would not abandon 5e because warlord isn't exactly as it was in 4e. If changes happen because the game is simplified and streamlined I'm all for keeping those elements. Removal of interesting elements of the class to placate people who will not make use of it no matter what form it takes just won't sit well with me. A class that is a shell of what I come to expect would be worse than not having it at all. Additionally, if the developers make that kind of decision at the end of the playtest process it would be a strong indicator for me making my decision.
yes I did mean 5e.
My only suggestion is that the warlord class has options to play it differently. Some might want martial healing to be magical and others won't. Of course, my idea of magical healing doesn't require the warlord to cast spells either. I'm also not suggesting that the warlord be limited to one playstyle or the other. I can't see how that wouldn't make everyone happy. The designers had no choice to fix the resting rules for that very reason and include options. I therefore see no reason why the same wouldn't be true for the warlord class either.
I'm all for having more options.
An additional concern with this line of thinking is that we would effectively be deciding that bards and warlords are the same and that a individual character can not be both since they are archtypes under the same umbrella. I much prefer the warlord sit under the martial umbrella, because to this point I have seen nothing to suggest that martial classes can't multi-class with each other. However, I can't see how a illusionist tradition could multi-class with a battle mage tradition.
I am respond assume you meant abandon 5e, So correct me if I'm wrong. I can't speak for Ed, but I would say this statement is somewhat accurate for me. The language is stronger then I would use, because I would not abandon 5e because warlord isn't ex
Whenever I see people on here arguing about what a Class IS, I always end up with a headache from my eyes rolling so much... People are fighting about the D&DN bard and warlord before we've even seen them. To me, the conversation is confusing. I don't personally see how they are similar at all. Maybe that's because I had a Bard in 2e who was so irreconcilable with a warlord that my brain can't compute it? I mean, what are we even talking about? That they are the same on some reductive level decided by a rando on the internet? Sure? Next problem...
Whenever I see people on here arguing about what a Class IS, I always end up with a headache from my eyes rolling so much...People are fighting about the D&DN bard and warlord before we've even seen them. To me, the conversation is confusing. I don't
In some ways, I see both these classes as two sides of the same coin.
The most basic, primary purpose of both is to provide support and enhancement to others in the party through their actions.
Warlords are the more Martial/Fighter side of the coin where the Bard is more Arcane/Roguish.
Warlords utilize their tactical knowledge and battlefield prowess to direct and rally their party members.
Bards utilize their artistic talents and understanding of emotions to encourage and inspire their party members.
A Warlord's effect focus should be in allowing others within the party to do more....to attack more, to move more, to save more, etc. A Bards effect focus should be in allowing others within the party to do better...to hit more, to move farther, to save better, etc.
In many ways, I see their abilities to affect the enemy following a similar parth both in style and application.
With that said...while I see them as two very SIMILAR classes, I don't really see them as functioning in a way where one is the subset of another. IE I can't see it working where "Bard" is the class and "Warlord" is a subset. I think the methods in how they do things are far too different for that to work. The Warlord should be a far better combatant while the Bard should be far more skilled, and that's before you get into the core class abilities.
I think both need to be a seperate class IF you're doing seperate classes all across the bard.
In some ways, I see both these classes as two sides of the same coin.The most basic, primary purpose of both is to provide support and enhancement to others in the party through their actions. Warlords are the more Martial/Fighter side of the coin wh
I get that many people hate designing for balance. At I get that many people like balance and require it. So, we can all pray to Buddha or Wotc and hope the other team is disappointed, or we can think about ways to make everyone happy. Wotc cracked it with cs dice, which was a compromise between those who liked simple vs complex fighters.
The way to deal with balance is to label builds, backgrounds, spells and all with a tag of "compatible with hard balance" and "incompatible". Design the compatible first, and then focus on adding incompatible. Note that I didn't say present first - I don't care which is the default, as long as both types of gamers can play. Under this model, the fighter and cleric are gimped for exploration and options to fix that needs to be addressed pronto. Even if you break balance later, give those who want it breadcrumbs to the balance solution.
Now for the op - if the assumption is that martial healing is both loved and hated, then we'll need to support both. Right now, the resting gives options, it's easy enough to make a note that says martial healing has similar options between being impossible, 50 % successful or 100% successful. Under that model, those who like warlords still get to keep their class safe from those who don't like it.
And maybe a section in the dmg that says "if you believe in only magical healing and your player wants to play a warlord, consider his happiness. A trivial workaround is o give the warlord a "horn of mending" - a wondering magic item that allows sufficiently wise characters to heal others through the power of their words. Since it is Attuned, no one else can use it. This item doesn't count against attunement limits.
Now the bard is studiously magical, and the warlord is inherently magical. Done! I know it's a compromise and that most 4e warlords would pray to never have a dm who insisted on the horn. But would that whole compromise work?
I get that many people hate designing for balance. At I get that many people like balance and require it. So, we can all pray to Buddha or Wotc and hope the other team is disappointed, or we can think about ways to make everyone happy. Wotc crac
My suggestion is that they might share a "common base class/archtype". With that in mind there might be a way to clean up the design and make the classes more modular.
So, since Warlords and Bards both "Heal and improve morale," they could be grouped under this base-class/archetype? And, since Clerics /also/ do both those things, they could go under it, as well.
Fighters, Barbarians, and Paladins, who stand the front line and trade blows with enemies in melee could also be grouped together under a base-class/archetype.
Rogues, Rangers, Monks, Warlocks and perhaps other classes are mobile and do damage more surgically, they could be grouped together under a base-class/archetype.
Wizards & Druids cast all kinds of spells and such, so they could be in one too.
We could call these base-class/archetypes: Leader, Defender, Striker and Controller.
So, since Warlords and Bards both "Heal and improve morale," they could be grouped under this base-class/archetype? And, since Clerics /also/ do both those things, they could go under it, as well.Fighters, Barbarians, and Paladins, who stand the fro
My suggestion is that they might share a "common base class/archtype". With that in mind there might be a way to clean up the design and make the classes more modular.
So, since Warlords and Bards both "Heal and improve morale," they could be grouped under this base-class/archetype? And, since Clerics /also/ do both those things, they could go under it, as well.
Fighters, Barbarians, and Paladins, who stand the front line and trade blows with enemies in melee could also be grouped together under a base-class/archetype.
Rogues, Rangers, Monks, Warlocks and perhaps other classes are mobile and do damage more surgically, they could be grouped together under a base-class/archetype.
Wizards & Druids cast all kinds of spells and such, so they could be in one too.
We could call these base-class/archetypes: Leader, Defender, Striker and Controller.
no i'm not talking about role. I'd actually like all classes to have the capability to fulfill any role, but not be forced to.
I think the warlord and the bard share the theme of using words to perform X. Magical and non-magical variants of each are fine. Some non-magical variants might be playstyle specific and include martial healing, and other types might not even have any healing or magic.
Either way I'm simply looking at the method by which they accomplish their goals. In the case of the warlord and bard that method is "word smithing", for lack of a better term. They both use communication and that's their implied framework, much like how the wizard and the warlock share spell casting and spells. In fact, I would support a list of powers that both classes could share depending on how they are built. For example, a militant bard or Skald might want tactical powers.
So, since Warlords and Bards both "Heal and improve morale," they could be grouped under this base-class/archetype? And, since Clerics /also/ do both those things, they could go under it, as well.Fighters, Barbarians, and Paladins, who stand the fro
Depending on how you view the concept of the bard and the warlord, is it not possible that they share a common base class/archtype?
Both have been described in D&D as leaders that improve morale and make use of healing.
Terrible idea. Bards are repositories of oral traditions trained by Druids in that lore, A sort of communications network in the Celtic tribal culture. If they use magic its Druid magic like in 1e when the Bard was rightly a hard class to get into taking a long time and used Druid spells.
Warlords are a brand new class that does better than the old fighter what the old fighter was supposed to do be a party leader.
Bards arent' leaders. they Satire leaders back them up or make them fall, but arent leaders thmselves.
Terrible idea. Bards are repositories of oral traditions trained by Druids in that lore, A sort of communications network in the Celtic tribal culture. If they use magic its Druid magic like in 1e when the Bard was rightly a hard class to get into ta
Depending on how you view the concept of the bard and the warlord, is it not possible that they share a common base class/archtype?
Both have been described in D&D as leaders that improve morale and make use of healing.
Terrible idea. Bards are repositories of oral traditions trained by Druids in that lore, A sort of communications network in the Celtic tribal culture. If they use magic its Druid magic like in 1e when the Bard was rightly a hard class to get into taking a long time and used Druid spells.
Warlords are a brand new class that does better than the old fighter what the old fighter was supposed to do be a party leader.
Bards arent' leaders. they Satire leaders back them up or make them fall, but arent leaders thmselves.
IMO, any class can be a leader. Leadership was actually a non-weapon prof in 2e. Then again, building morale isn't always something associated with leadership alone; a good song or even a magical spell could do the same. And yes, fighters and paladin types usually did take the leadership skill. Actually, I was reading a few blogs from 2008 that were rather upset with the warlord concept. The claim was that it was basically just another version of a paladin or cleric.
Terrible idea. Bards are repositories of oral traditions trained by Druids in that lore, A sort of communications network in the Celtic tribal culture. If they use magic its Druid magic like in 1e when the Bard was rightly a hard class to get into ta
Whenever I see people on here arguing about what a Class IS, I always end up with a headache from my eyes rolling so much... People are fighting about the D&DN bard and warlord before we've even seen them. To me, the conversation is confusing. I don't personally see how they are similar at all. Maybe that's because I had a Bard in 2e who was so irreconcilable with a warlord that my brain can't compute it? I mean, what are we even talking about? That they are the same on some reductive level decided by a rando on the internet? Sure? Next problem...
I wish we could favorite posts! (I would favorite this one.)
In some ways, I see both these classes as two sides of the same coin.
The most basic, primary purpose of both is to provide support and enhancement to others in the party through their actions.
Warlords are the more Martial/Fighter side of the coin where the Bard is more Arcane/Roguish.
Warlords utilize their tactical knowledge and battlefield prowess to direct and rally their party members.
Bards utilize their artistic talents and understanding of emotions to encourage and inspire their party members.
A Warlord's effect focus should be in allowing others within the party to do more....to attack more, to move more, to save more, etc. A Bards effect focus should be in allowing others within the party to do better...to hit more, to move farther, to save better, etc.
In many ways, I see their abilities to affect the enemy following a similar parth both in style and application.
With that said...while I see them as two very SIMILAR classes, I don't really see them as functioning in a way where one is the subset of another. IE I can't see it working where "Bard" is the class and "Warlord" is a subset. I think the methods in how they do things are far too different for that to work. The Warlord should be a far better combatant while the Bard should be far more skilled, and that's before you get into the core class abilities.
I think both need to be a seperate class IF you're doing seperate classes all across the bard.
I agree with what's being said, and I'd like to add that I don't see the warlord as being a 'support' class in any sense related to the way in which the bard is a 'support' class.
The bard supports the efforts of his allies, whereas the warlord directs the efforts of his allies. One is a sidekick, the other is choosing the play.
I think it underserves the warlord to think of him in terms of being a 'support' class. -- He's something different that isn't well described using our common understanding of the term.
So, since Warlords and Bards both "Heal and improve morale," they could be grouped under this base-class/archetype? And, since Clerics /also/ do both those things, they could go under it, as well.
Fighters, Barbarians, and Paladins, who stand the front line and trade blows with enemies in melee could also be grouped together under a base-class/archetype.
Rogues, Rangers, Monks, Warlocks and perhaps other classes are mobile and do damage more surgically, they could be grouped together under a base-class/archetype.
Wizards & Druids cast all kinds of spells and such, so they could be in one too.
We could call these base-class/archetypes: Leader, Defender, Striker and Controller.
I see what you did there...
I wish we could favorite posts! (I would favorite this one.)I agree with what's being said, and I'd like to add that I don't see the warlord as being a 'support' class in any sense related to the way in which the bard is a 'support' class.The bard su
Terrible idea. Bards are repositories of oral traditions trained by Druids in that lore, A sort of communications network in the Celtic tribal culture. If they use magic its Druid magic like in 1e when the Bard was rightly a hard class to get into taking a long time and used Druid spells.
Warlords are a brand new class that does better than the old fighter what the old fighter was supposed to do be a party leader.
Bards arent' leaders. they Satire leaders back them up or make them fall, but arent leaders thmselves.
We don't force the druid to adhere to any historical reference, why would we do so with the bard?
IMO, any class can be a leader. Leadership was actually a non-weapon prof in 2e. Then again, building morale isn't always something associated with leadership alone; a good song or even a magical spell could do the same. And yes, fighters and paladin types usually did take the leadership skill. Actually, I was reading a few blogs from 2008 that were rather upset with the warlord concept. The claim was that it was basically just another version of a paladin or cleric.
Another version of the paladin? Huh... interesting.
We don't force the druid to adhere to any historical reference, why would we do so with the bard? Another version of the paladin? Huh... interesting. :confused:
i think I each class should be distinct in terms of its mechanics and concept. As such, overlap should be minimized and where it occurs in function, it should be distinguished by mechanics.
That being said, then the warlord should be fighter/martial and the bard rogue/arcane (or possibly druid, but i think arcane is more in line with how people see the class these days) as others have suggested.
Under this concept, warlords grant allies actions and reactions, and don't have magical powers. They don't need them. Any healing maneuvers should grant temporary hit points, because inspiration and adrenalin may get you to stay in the battle but they don't heal you. When they wear off, you are still injured. It also helps make them distinct from bards and clerics (the other "leader" classes).
Bards would maintain their role as lore masters, magical inspirer's, and dabblers in skills and magic (including a little healing).
Both end up inspiring and supporting their allies, but with distinct and non overlapping mechanics.
i think I each class should be distinct in terms of its mechanics and concept. As such, overlap should be minimized and where it occurs in function, it should be distinguished by mechanics. That being said, then the warlord should be fighter/martial
A reasonable position, but if martial healing is powered by ED, all makes warlords have effectively unlimited healing since they could heal every round as their ED are renewed. This is unbalancing to me and makes warlord a better healer than an optimized healer cleric. Making martial healing grant temp hp avoids those issues, and makes their healing distinct from magical healing.
I think it also works more consistently with how most players view hp damage and how most dm's describe hp damage. I can honestly say in all my years as a dm and player, I have never described inflicting 7 points of damage with a long sword by saying: "the Orc feints at your face with his shield and then swings a vicious blow at your knees that leaves you feeling a little winded and off balance." Pretty consistently it's been more along the lines of: "the Orc feints at your face with his shield and then swings a vicious blow at your knees that cuts across your thigh and opens a bloody wound." The second example is just more exciting and seems to reflect actual damage more than the first one. And once you've described damage that way, martial healing that actually closes that cut across the thigh by simple exhortation does not feel right.
Personal taste, perhaps. but I also like it better from a design and balance perspective.
A reasonable position, but if martial healing is powered by ED, all makes warlords have effectively unlimited healing since they could heal every round as their ED are renewed. This is unbalancing to me and makes warlord a better healer than an optim
Ah I took your post to mean that you didn't want the warlord using ED.
Yeah at-will heals are a problem but there are two easy solutions, either a.) make the at-will heals burn the Target's recoveri dice or b.) stop using ED for everything that isn't a mage.
Ah I took your post to mean that you didn't want the warlord using ED.Yeah at-will heals are a problem but there are two easy solutions, either a.) make the at-will heals burn the Target's recoveri dice or b.) stop using ED for everything that isn't
Your apparent love of spurting chest wounds aside, from a design and balance perspective, that's terrible. It means a Warlord could never be a sufficient leader for a party, which throws any claim that it's balanced right out, and it's supporting your horribly unrealistic misconception of HP, so it's bad design as well.
A bard who reduces a guard to negative HP via Vicious Mockery possibly persuaded him to abandon his post and run off.)
Wow, that would be such a huge disconnect for my group.
It's not the job of the rules to cater to the most closed-minded.
Your apparent love of spurting chest wounds aside, from a design and balance perspective, that's terrible. It means a Warlord could never be a sufficient leader for a party, which throws any claim that it's balanced right out, and it's supporting you
If anything, given that there's a general sense of ear-plugged petulance that some are insisting upon, it should be recognized that the bard is not a rogue/wizard, he's a fighter/wizard/cleric/rogue. As per the L&L article describing design, the bard can fight, cast spells, heal and is skillful (as has been true in his every incarnation). I'll reiterate that the class is not the sum of other classes, that he never has been, and that it is it's own beast entirely (as is the warlord), but I digress.
If anything, given that there's a general sense of ear-plugged petulance that some are insisting upon, it should be recognized that the bard is not a rogue/wizard, he's a fighter/wizard/cleric/rogue. As per the L&L article describing design, the bard
The bard is a jack of all trades in reference to their travels and through the power of music is able to call upon all spell casting traditions to cover ground as a wizard or cleric. Where the warlord is a specialist in the field that focuses on group tactics. The common ground they share is they both work well with groups, but the focus is different. On one hand the bard is focused on maintaining traditions, knowledge and lore and keeping communities together while the warlord is about enforcing martial law, and using a warband or group at full effectivness to win the battle.
In reference to the warlord, the easiest way to control their healing is to base it on temporary hit points, similar to an andrenaline rush. Temporary hits points would not stack and only the highest value applies when they are granted.
The bard is a jack of all trades in reference to their travels and through the power of music is able to call upon all spell casting traditions to cover ground as a wizard or cleric. Where the warlord is a specialist in the field that focuses on grou
A reasonable position, but if martial healing is powered by ED, all makes warlords have effectively unlimited healing since they could heal every round as their ED are renewed.
All you need to do is put the following line in the "Inspiring Word" maneuver: "An individual can be healed by this maneuver only once between long rests." Voila. The warlord can now heal each of his allies exactly once a day.
All you need to do is put the following line in the "Inspiring Word" maneuver: "An individual can be healed by this maneuver only once between long rests." Voila. The warlord can now heal each of his allies exactly once a day.
Your apparent love of spurting chest wounds aside, from a design and balance perspective, that's terrible. It means a Warlord could never be a sufficient leader for a party, which throws any claim that it's balanced right out, and it's supporting your horribly unrealistic misconception of HP, so it's bad design as well.
A bard who reduces a guard to negative HP via Vicious Mockery possibly persuaded him to abandon his post and run off.)
Wow, that would be such a huge disconnect for my group.
It's not the job of the rules to cater to the most closed-minded.
Well isn't that charitable. FYI, I think your playstyle is close minded and limited by the rules. For you, the rules come first and the apologists at the table are left to explain what happened after everyone rolls their eyes.
Wow, that would be such a huge disconnect for my group.[/quote]It's not the job of the rules to cater to the most closed-minded.[/quote]Well isn't that charitable. FYI, I think your playstyle is close minded and limited by the rules. For you, the
For those insisting on differing hp impact temp hp is often presented.
Resonating shout all allies within earshot feel a rush of vigor as their spirit is raised in response they gain 1HD worth temp hit points and gain 2 points initiative.
An individual can only be affected by this maneuver once between short rests
Increase the HD to remain relevant as they level
For those insisting on differing hp impact temp hp is often presented.Resonating shout all allies within earshot feel a rush of vigor as their spirit is raised in response they gain 1HD worth temp hit points and gain 2 points initiative.An individual
Let's all back away from the cliff of uncivility...
My comment on describing hit point damage in combat was color or fluff on top of the mechanics we had been talking about, and so far this has been a pretty good thread.
To avoid any further side tracking, let me take a moment to post the official description of hit points from the play test and we will work from that:
"In short, hit points are an abstraction. Each creature has a hit point maximum, which is the total of its Hit Die rolls, Constitution modifier, and any other modifiers. When your current hit point total is no less than half your hit point maximum, you typically show no signs of injury. When you drop below that threshold, you show signs of wear, such as cuts and bruises. An attack that reduces you to 0 hit points or fewer strikes you directly, leaving a bleeding injury or other trauma, or it simply knocks you unconscious."
With that in mind, let us turn our attention back to the discussion we were having on mechanics and differentiation...
My point was that having warlord ED maneuvers do traditional healing is a bad design because it slews the distribution of healing such that warlords would have every round healing that no other class would be able to come close to matching. Changing it to some sort of daily mechanic would address this concern. However, i like the uniqueness for the class of doing it using ED dice, which is why i like the temp hp model. It allows every round HP support without throwing off the amount of healing available in the game by other classes and equipment.
Having warlords do traditional healing also does not differentiate them from the other classes that have a healing/party recovery mechanic. This is not critical, it is just a way to address some concerns that have been expressed that there is not enough uniqueness between how classes interact in areas like healing. It helps differentiate the warlord and the bard, for example, further to give them a different feel. Is this essential/necessary? Does it break the class if it has traditional healing? No. It just seems to fit better to have every round ability to enhance allies with temp HP that represents the warlord's round by round encouragement to a flagging ally than a more limited supply of daily healing. Again, other views are equally valid.
Another option is to make it a limited, daily allotment of magical healing. This is not as flavorful in my mind, but it would bring the warlord's healing into the same set of healing rules as the other classes with healing. You may need to add a little fluff to the class to explain its healing ability in this case, though.
Another approach raised by another poster is to leave it martial and have it trigger the character who is being healed's HD mechanic. This is a good way to help limit the unlimited healing issue, while otherwise allowing the warlord to heal every round. If the temp HP model is not feasible/desirable, I think this is the next best choice. It allows for differentiation, and it has a built in limiting mechanic. It may be affected, though, by how a particular campaign decides to implement the healing rules since some of the healing options eliminate the HD mechanic for short rests which would throw the balance off a bit.
Let's all back away from the cliff of uncivility... My comment on describing hit point damage in combat was color or fluff on top of the mechanics we had been talking about, and so far this has been a pretty good thread. To avoid any further side tr
For those insisting on differing hp impact temp hp is often presented.
Resonating shout all allies within earshot feel a rush of vigor as their spirit is raised in response they gain 1HD worth temp hit points and gain 2 points initiative.
An individual can only be affected by this maneuver once between short rests
Increase the HD to remain relevant as they level
This is another flavorful approach. I like the idea of addiing initiative bonus to represent a quick recovery an return to battle. It would really have a one round initiative impact, but if it jumps you ahead of an opponent for that round that is a tangible benefit. I'd probably make it higher than +2 under this option.
Would there be an ED cost to use this maneuver? If it takes the warlord's whole action, it is kinda irrelevant. However, if it is something that can be done as part of an action or otherwise allows a warlord to use ED dice in addition, than it may be important whether it uses some ED.
This is another flavorful approach. I like the idea of addiing initiative bonus to represent a quick recovery an return to battle. It would really have a one round initiative impact, but if it jumps you ahead of an opponent for that round that is a t
I would say that they're about as similar to one another as the Fighter and Paladin are to one another, the key difference being that one enhances their abilities with magic while the other one does not. In that case, just as the Paladin could be viewed as a Cleric-Fighter, the Bard could be viewed as a Wizard-Warlord.
I'd say that while both combinations are a bit of a kludge solution, the Bard as a Wizard-Warlord is a much more of a kludge. I'm not sure I could even build a wizard/warlord that I'd be remotely satisfied playing as a Bard. I'd rather wait a year for a real bard class to come out.
The bard should be second only to the rogue in skills, and I've always thought the rogue should be more focused in skill set than the bard. (maybe the bard in Next could get a smaller boost that applies to trained and untrained skills, making him more versatile, but with slightly lower numbers.)
The bard should have class features that are not spells that magically interact with the world, boosting ally morale while demoralizing/charming/tricking enemies. These should be things the bard can "turn on", and then do other things.
I could go on, but there have been whole threads dedicated to this before, so I'd just be repeated what's been said a dozen times.
I'd say that while both combinations are a bit of a kludge solution, the Bard as a Wizard-Warlord is a much more of a kludge. I'm not sure I could even build a wizard/warlord that I'd be remotely satisfied playing as a Bard. I'd rather wait a year fo
My suggestion is that they might share a "common base class/archtype". With that in mind there might be a way to clean up the design and make the classes more modular.
So, since Warlords and Bards both "Heal and improve morale," they could be grouped under this base-class/archetype? And, since Clerics /also/ do both those things, they could go under it, as well.
Fighters, Barbarians, and Paladins, who stand the front line and trade blows with enemies in melee could also be grouped together under a base-class/archetype.
Rogues, Rangers, Monks, Warlocks and perhaps other classes are mobile and do damage more surgically, they could be grouped together under a base-class/archetype.
Wizards & Druids cast all kinds of spells and such, so they could be in one too.
We could call these base-class/archetypes: Leader, Defender, Striker and Controller.
no i'm not talking about role.
Actually, you were, You said:
Both have been described in D&D as leaders that improve morale and make use of healing.
That's something the Warlord did in filling the leader role. And it's something the warlord and bard have in common with the Cleric. Healing and boosting morale - that's a role a character could play in battle, whether it's formally called a 'leader' or not.
I'd actually like all classes to have the capability to fulfill any role, but not be forced to.
How would you envision a Fighter fulfilling a Controller role, or the exploration-pillar role clearly meant to the the 5e Rogue's claim to relevance? Heck, since 5e is balanced across instead of within pillar, the Bard is most likely going to be a 'face' class, supreme in the social pillar, just helping out a bit here and there in combat & exploration while other classes theoretically shine.
I think the warlord and the bard share the theme of using words to perform X. Magical and non-magical variants of each are fine. Either way I'm simply looking at the method by which they accomplish their goals. In the case of the warlord and bard that method is "word smithing", for lack of a better term. They both use communication and that's their implied framework, much like how the wizard and the warlock share spell casting and spells.
All spell casters use words - magical words - to perform X. Bards use music. Pre-5e versions of the Bard and Warlord have both been able to use their abilities on creatures who cannot understand their words. Clearly, they are not just using language to do their thing.
Clearly you have a vision in your head of how you want things to be. That vision doesn't match any version of the bard or warlord, but you'd like to impose it on all of us.
I wish you the worst of all possible luck with that.
So, since Warlords and Bards both "Heal and improve morale," they could be grouped under this base-class/archetype? And, since Clerics /also/ do both those things, they could go under it, as well.Fighters, Barbarians, and Paladins, who stand the fro
My point was that having warlord ED maneuvers do traditional healing is a bad design because it slews the distribution of healing such that warlords would have every round healing that no other class would be able to come close to matching.
Yep. Healing is the kind of thing that needs some limitation on it. 5e is leaning heavily on daily resources for that kind of limitation. The warlord should simply get some daily uses of some sort of Inspiring Word or something, and use it to heal.
But, of course, there are those who /hate/ martial dailies, just as there are those who /hate/ Vancian casting, so, clearly, just as Vancian has been dropped from 5e design, the Warlord shouldn't get daily healing...
... oh, wait, Vancian is non-negotiably /in/. Guess the warlord should have some daily powers. Fighter could do with some, too, since ED is turning out to be about as differentiating as BAB.
However, i like the uniqueness for the class of doing it using ED dice, which is why i like the temp hp model. It allows every round HP support without throwing off the amount of healing available in the game by other classes and equipment.
Warlords have been able to grant temp hps from day 1, don't see why they shouldn't still be able to.
Having warlords do traditional healing also does not differentiate them from the other classes that have a healing/party recovery mechanic.
Meaningless. Healing is just 'restoring hps.' All classes can inflict damage, some can heal it. Healing differentiates classes that heal from classes that don't. Spellcasting differentiates classes that cast spells from those who don't. The Warlord would be the only class that heals and doesn't cast spells - that's pretty differentiated, right there.
Another approach raised by another poster is to leave it martial and have it trigger the character who is being healed's HD mechanic. This is a good way to help limit the unlimited healing issue, while otherwise allowing the warlord to heal every round.
Nod. That was me. Not just trigger, though, but add to. Just triggering would make the Warlord an inferior healer, unable to actually improve the party's staying power over the course of the day.
Yep. Healing is the kind of thing that needs some limitation on it. 5e is leaning heavily on daily resources for that kind of limitation. The warlord should simply get some daily uses of some sort of Inspiring Word or something, and use it to heal
I still reject the THP "compromise" (it is no such thing) utterly.
For a startoff it totally fails to recognise the fact that non-magical healing is not only more common in the literature but effective in the real world.
It also fails to match to the open nature of HP as defined in Next.
...
I DO see the "healing every round is too much" argument as fair though.
But agree that Martial Dailies will bring too much whining to be worth the effort of defending (even though they make more sense than the stupidity of magical dailies).
So I suggest a simple compromise, a REAL compromise!
Why not have per-encounter per-character limits?
It could start at once per-character per-encounter and go up over time, perhaps to 2 at lvl 6 and 3 at lvl 11?
I still reject the THP "compromise" (it is no such thing) utterly.For a startoff it totally fails to recognise the fact that non-magical healing is not only more common in the literature but effective in the real world.It also fails to match to the o
Since HP are abstract, temporary hit points actually favor martial healing more than classic healing from a cleric. The former is based on individual recovery, adrenaline, or a temporary boost in defense, where classic healing is coming from the power of a diety. Beyond temporary hit points, there are other concepts like restoring hit dice, gaining more use out of healing kits, or based on optional or experimental hit point reoovery, the warlord could add in their level or ability bonus. They could even go so far as to enhance the abiltiies of other classes like granting re-use or extra expertise dice for martial classes or spells for casters.
Since HP are abstract, temporary hit points actually favor martial healing more than classic healing from a cleric. The former is based on individual recovery, adrenaline, or a temporary boost in defense, where classic healing is coming from the powe
Both have been described in D&D as leaders that improve morale and make use of healing.
That's something the Warlord did in filling the leader role. And it's something the warlord and bard have in common with the Cleric. Healing and boosting morale - that's a role a character could play in battle, whether it's formally called a 'leader' or not.
I'd actually like all classes to have the capability to fulfill any role, but not be forced to.
How would you envision a Fighter fulfilling a Controller role, or the exploration-pillar role clearly meant to the the 5e Rogue's claim to relevance? Heck, since 5e is balanced across instead of within pillar, the Bard is most likely going to be a 'face' class, supreme in the social pillar, just helping out a bit here and there in combat & exploration while other classes theoretically shine.
I wasn't talking about the mechanical 4e concept of role.
Clearly you have a vision in your head of how you want things to be. That vision doesn't match any version of the bard or warlord, but you'd like to impose it on all of us.
I wish you the worst of all possible luck with that.
I'm not imposing anything, that's a big assumption on your part. I'm just posting this as a topic for conversation/debate. I guess the warlord is just a touchy subject for some of you guys.
That's something the Warlord did in filling the leader role. And it's something the warlord and bard have in common with the Cleric. Healing and boosting morale - that's a role a character could play in battle, whether it's formally called a 'leade
The basic premise of this thread is that Bards and Warlords are similar enough to be different builds of the same class or archetype, with magic-use being the primary differentiating factor. To find an answer we need only look at the designers professed approach to classes.
What is the story of the Bard? What is its place in the world? What is the story of the Warlord? What is its place in the world.
A Bard is wandering minstrel, a member of a royal court, an historian, or a jack-of-all trades.
A Warlord is a grizzled sargent, a young officer fresh out of the academy, the leader of a fort on the borderlands, or a farmer who organizes their village to fend of an orc attack.
Their is no overlap between the story and world position of Bards and Warlords. This is why they should be separate classes.
The basic premise of this thread is that Bards and Warlords are similar enough to be different builds of the same class or archetype, with magic-use being the primary differentiating factor. To find an answer we need only look at the designers profes
My point was that having warlord ED maneuvers do traditional healing is a bad design because it slews the distribution of healing such that warlords would have every round healing that no other class would be able to come close to matching.
Yep. Healing is the kind of thing that needs some limitation on it. 5e is leaning heavily on daily resources for that kind of limitation. The warlord should simply get some daily uses of some sort of Inspiring Word or something, and use it to heal.
But, of course, there are those who /hate/ martial dailies, just as there are those who /hate/ Vancian casting, so, clearly, just as Vancian has been dropped from 5e design, the Warlord shouldn't get daily healing...
... oh, wait, Vancian is non-negotiably /in/. Guess the warlord should have some daily powers. Fighter could do with some, too, since ED is turning out to be about as differentiating as BAB.
However, i like the uniqueness for the class of doing it using ED dice, which is why i like the temp hp model. It allows every round HP support without throwing off the amount of healing available in the game by other classes and equipment.
Warlords have been able to grant temp hps from day 1, don't see why they shouldn't still be able to.
Having warlords do traditional healing also does not differentiate them from the other classes that have a healing/party recovery mechanic.
Meaningless. Healing is just 'restoring hps.' All classes can inflict damage, some can heal it. Healing differentiates classes that heal from classes that don't. Spellcasting differentiates classes that cast spells from those who don't. The Warlord would be the only class that heals and doesn't cast spells - that's pretty differentiated, right there.
Another approach raised by another poster is to leave it martial and have it trigger the character who is being healed's HD mechanic. This is a good way to help limit the unlimited healing issue, while otherwise allowing the warlord to heal every round.
Nod. That was me. Not just trigger, though, but add to. Just triggering would make the Warlord an inferior healer, unable to actually improve the party's staying power over the course of the day.
Thanks for identifying that you were the suggester for the idea to use HD as a possible limit on ED use. I think Wrecan had some similar ideas. I agree it should add more than just the used HD. It also probably needs a limiter that could tie into Admiral-JC-JF's idea of an encounter cap by using one HD for each ED used and then adding the ED value (or some such).
The ability to trigger HD from a distance without a healing kit, and add healing on top of it, seems like a valuable ability. Since ED number and dice size scale with level, it would effectively increase warlord healing automatically as the warlord levels. The dice pool also refreshes every round unlike prepared spells, so it may still be a little high over the course of healing many people. This does kinda represent the commander visiting the soldiers in the infirmary after the battle. Aragon did this in LOTR.
Yep. Healing is the kind of thing that needs some limitation on it. 5e is leaning heavily on daily resources for that kind of limitation. The warlord should simply get some daily uses of some sort of Inspiring Word or something, and use it to heal
I still reject the THP "compromise" (it is no such thing) utterly.
For a startoff it totally fails to recognise the fact that non-magical healing is not only more common in the literature but effective in the real world.
It also fails to match to the open nature of HP as defined in Next.
...
I DO see the "healing every round is too much" argument as fair though.
But agree that Martial Dailies will bring too much whining to be worth the effort of defending (even though they make more sense than the stupidity of magical dailies).
So I suggest a simple compromise, a REAL compromise!
Why not have per-encounter per-character limits?
It could start at once per-character per-encounter and go up over time, perhaps to 2 at lvl 6 and 3 at lvl 11?
I'm not proposing THP as a compromise, but as a design preference.
The warlord is described as an inspirational leader, who rallies and re-energizes his troops so they can continue the battle with new fervor. Words are used like adrenalin, temporary defensive boost, refocusing, morale, and these all have effect on the battlefield. They also are generally temporary boosts that wear off, leaving you as tired, injured, and worn out as before the rallying by the inspirational leader.
I am not opposed to a warlord with the ability to heal if that is how the class is published. I think it is likely it will come out with healing abilities since the class has them now.
It just seems to me that it makes sense to look at them this way:
Healing = restore as if it never happened.
Inspiring = surge of adrenalin that makes you temporarily more effective and then wears off
It also makes it easier to balance it on an encounter basis with ED since temp HP wear off and don't have the same lasting effect as healing (which I understand is also why some people prefer the warlord just has healing).
I'm not proposing THP as a compromise, but as a design preference. The warlord is described as an inspirational leader, who rallies and re-energizes his troops so they can continue the battle with new fervor. Words are used like adrenalin, temporary
It just seems to me that it makes sense to look at them this way:
Healing = restore as if it never happened.
Inspiring = surge of adrenalin that makes you temporarily more effective and then wears off
Okay.
Now how do we define bard healing?
Do bards actually heal, or do they inspire?
I'm going to parrot again that inspiration and morale are 99% of the 'bards and warlords are the same deal' assertion. Stop using these terms for the warlord and we resolve most (if not all) of the debate.
Okay.Now how do we define bard healing?Do bards actually heal, or do they inspire? :confused:I'm going to parrot again that inspiration and morale are 99% of the 'bards and warlords are the same deal' assertion. Stop using these terms for the warlord
While I still see Hit Dice as a hamfisted hackjob of scratching all the 4th Edition identity off of Healing Surges which, in fact, simply strip out all of the real development of the latter.
Nevertheless they might make a good core for Warlord Healing.
Activating Hit Dice and then adding the value of all Expertise Dice used to the healing granted gives an inherent limit on number of times healing is performed (if you are out of HD then you are done) while still allowing for significant healing (perhaps an attribute modifier could also be added at higher levels).
But the whole Bard/Warlord thing is pure stupidity.
One can equally say that spells and magic are 99% of the "Clerics and Wizards are the same deal" assertion and it will be no more stupid. There is no reason two classes cannot use some similar terms and concepts while still being clearly defined from one another.
While I still see Hit Dice as a hamfisted hackjob of scratching all the 4th Edition identity off of Healing Surges which, in fact, simply strip out all of the real development of the latter.Nevertheless they might make a good core for Warlord Healing
But the whole Bard/Warlord thing is pure stupidity.
Ouch.
I'm hoping it's the larger conversation you're calling stupid and not myself and my comments in particular.
One can equally say that spells and magic are 99% of the "Clerics and Wizards are the same deal" assertion and it will be no more stupid. There is no reason two classes cannot use some similar terms and concepts while still being clearly defined from one another.
And yet we've qualified magic as either divine or arcane since the dawn of the game, and intermittently referred to spells in cleric hands as prayers, so precedence for drawing lines plainly exists and isn't as purely stupid as you would have me believe.
Ouch.I'm hoping it's the larger conversation you're calling stupid and not myself and my comments in particular.And yet we've qualified magic as either divine or arcane since the dawn of the game, and intermittently referred to spells in cleric hands
But the whole Bard/Warlord thing is pure stupidity.
Ouch.
I'm hoping it's the larger conversation you're calling stupid and not myself and my comments in particular.
One can equally say that spells and magic are 99% of the "Clerics and Wizards are the same deal" assertion and it will be no more stupid. There is no reason two classes cannot use some similar terms and concepts while still being clearly defined from one another.
And yet we've qualified magic as either divine or arcane since the dawn of the game, and intermittently referred to spells in cleric hands as prayers, so precedence for drawing lines plainly exists and isn't as purely stupid as you would have me believe.
You have caught my point exactly.
There is MORE than sufficient definition between Bards and Warlords.
Like the Cleric and the Wizard they share some concepts and terms, but they are distinct and clearly separate classes.
Ouch.I'm hoping it's the larger conversation you're calling stupid and not myself and my comments in particular.And yet we've qualified magic as either divine or arcane since the dawn of the game, and intermittently referred to spells in cleric hands
There is MORE than sufficient definition between Bards and Warlords.
Like the Cleric and the Wizard they share some concepts and terms, but they are distinct and clearly separate classes.
We agree.
We both assert the same thing, however, the proliferation of threads (and the hundreds of posts within them) evidences that others beg to differ. All I'm doing is pointing out what I recognize as a common element in the broader discussion. -- As stupid as that may seem to you.
We agree.We both assert the same thing, however, the proliferation of threads (and the hundreds of posts within them) evidences that others beg to differ. All I'm doing is pointing out what I recognize as a common element in the broader discussion. -
There is MORE than sufficient definition between Bards and Warlords.
Like the Cleric and the Wizard they share some concepts and terms, but they are distinct and clearly separate classes.
We agree.
We both assert the same thing, however, the proliferation of threads (and the hundreds of posts within them) evidences that others beg to differ. All I'm doing is pointing out what I recognize as a common element in the broader discussion. -- As stupid as that may seem to you.
If that's what you were doing (and I fear it was not clear) then you were absolutely NOT being stupid.
But the argument that we don't need a Warlord, because they have some minor overlap with the Bard, is VERY stupid.
But the clear statement from the G+ discussion was that the Bard is being moved out of the design space of the Warlord, which I suspect means that we will see less "inspiration" from the Bard and more of a Sword+Skill+Spell focus.
We agree.We both assert the same thing, however, the proliferation of threads (and the hundreds of posts within them) evidences that others beg to differ. All I'm doing is pointing out what I recognize as a common element in the broader discussion. -
If that's what you were doing (and I fear it was not clear) then you were absolutely NOT being stupid.
But the argument that we don't need a Warlord, because they have some minor overlap with the Bard, is VERY stupid.
I assumed my involvement over the many threads on the topic made clear that I fully support the existence of the warlord, and that I see the insistence upon using the terms 'inspiration' and 'morale' for both classes to be an easily avoided point of contention. Thus the reason I prefaced my statement here with: I'll parrot again...
But the clear statement from the G+ discussion was that the Bard is being moved out of the design space of the Warlord, which I suspect means that we will see less "inspiration" from the Bard and more of a Sword+Skill+Spell focus.
I don't believe that any such clear statement was made. The bard has held the unique ability to affect his allies through inspiration and morale boosting via Bardic Music since at least 1989.
AD&D 2E Player's Handbook, page 60: The music, poetry, and stories of the bard can also be inspirational, rallying friends and allies. If the exact nature of an impending threat is known, the bard can heroically inspire his companions (immortalizing them in word and song), granting a +1 bonus to attack rolls, or a +1 bonus to saving throws, or a +2 bonus to morale (particularly useful in large battles) to those involved in melee. ... However, troops who have withdrawn from combat can be reinspired by the bard's words. A troop of soldiers, inspired by Cwell, could charge into battle. After fighting a fierce fight, they retreat and the enemy does not pursue. Cwell, seeing them crestfallen and dispirited, once again rouses their will to fight. Reinvigorated, they charge back into the battle with renewed spirit.
The above quote pointedly covers the entire purview of the inspirational hero who boosts morale through his words and presence. Come the year 2000, and the bard is explicitly using Inspire Courage, Inspire Greatness, Inspire Heroics, Inspire Competence, etc. These capabilities, some maintaining their very name, persist into and through 4th Edition. -- That's roughly 25 years of having rightful claim to the 'inspire' schtick.
I'm quite hesitant to believe that the bard will lose this in favor of giving the warlord claim when the warlord already brings something to the table that is completely unique in its own right: tactical prowess, strategy, and action enabling. Shift all of our warlord musing to focus on those unique things, and the 'bards and warlords are basically the same thing' conversation has nothing to stand on.
Insight and intellectual battle prowess is the warlord's thing. Inspiration and rallying is the bard's.
I assumed my involvement over the many threads on the topic made clear that I fully support the existence of the warlord, and that I see the insistence upon using the terms 'inspiration' and 'morale' for both classes to be an easily avoided point of
Hey, I'm a BIG fan of Tactical Warlords and for me there would be no issue with the "Inspiring" aspects of the Warlord being shorn away and packaged into the Bard class.
But I don't get the impression that is what is being done when Mearls talks about "moving the Bard out of the design space for the Warlord".
I certainly agree about the history of the Bard.
Still, the key point here is that there's no reason why two classes can't both do "inspiring" and still be distinct.
So there is no NEED to "move" the Bard NOR for the Warlord to sacrifice anything.
Hey, I'm a BIG fan of Tactical Warlords and for me there would be no issue with the "Inspiring" aspects of the Warlord being shorn away and packaged into the Bard class.But I don't get the impression that is what is being done when Mearls talks about
Hey, I'm a BIG fan of Tactical Warlords and for me there would be no issue with the "Inspiring" aspects of the Warlord being shorn away and packaged into the Bard class.
But I don't get the impression that is what is being done when Mearls talks about "moving the Bard out of the design space for the Warlord".
I got the impression that Mearls was simply stating that the inclusion of the warlord creates an interesting consideration of the bard's realm of contribution, not so much anything as clear as saying that the bard needed to be moved somewhere else so that the warlord can be included.
Feedback will very quickly elucidate that players of bards like to inspire through performance, provide blanket support, know stuff, and toy with fascination, and that players of warlords like to impact combat through strategy, afford actions to their allies, and reinforce the durability of their team. If the devs are under the impression that the key appeal of bards is the jack of all trades aspect, and that the key appeal of warlords is the ability to inspire, going so far as to redefine them in an attempt to shoehorn/spoonfeed these beliefs, then we're all in for a rough and tumble outcry of dissaproval when that packet hits the interwebs. -- Can only imagine.
EDIT: I just relistened to the relevant segment of the Google+ Hangout and the 'shifting the bard' comment was in specific reference to potentially removing the ability to heal from the bard in order to give warlords something special. I have to say that healing is not central to the experience of either class, and if that's their focus for differentiation they're missing the whole point.
I got the impression that Mearls was simply stating that the inclusion of the warlord creates an interesting consideration of the bard's realm of contribution, not so much anything as clear as saying that the bard needed to be moved somewhere else so
I believe the move to distinguish them is rooted in 4E where the two classes shared design space, where in previous editions the bard dominated the design space for influencing the party or advesaries. For instance, granting temporary hit points or initiative may be a warlord feature, where the bard boosts morale by granting skills or save bonuses. Where a bard may try to influence or charm his opponents, the warlord wants to make the choice obvious by having a superior tactial advantage. Or can we all get along versus might makes right. I can just imagine a party with a bard and warlord.
I believe the move to distinguish them is rooted in 4E where the two classes shared design space, where in previous editions the bard dominated the design space for influencing the party or advesaries. For instance, granting temporary hit points or i
I believe the move to distinguish them is rooted in 4E where the two classes shared design space, where in previous editions the bard dominated the design space for influencing the party or advesaries. For instance, granting temporary hit points or initiative may be a warlord feature, where the bard boosts morale by granting skills or save bonuses. Where a bard may try to influence or charm his opponents, the warlord wants to make the choice obvious by having a superior tactial advantage. Or can we all get along versus might makes right. I can just imagine a party with a bard and warlord.
Agreed.
My proposal to avoid terms like 'inspiration' and 'morale' when discussing the warlord is mostly a call for differentiation in language aesthetic. The warlord can be inspirational, as well as a boon to morale, without having to use those terms to describe his class features. I'd say that the cleric has always been a source of steadfast morale, and the paladin is an inspirational figure, both without ever having to use specifically named effects in order to be such.
I don't want anything about the warlord changed, I just find it sensible to avoid such blatantly obvious points of contention and confusion.
Agreed.My proposal to avoid terms like 'inspiration' and 'morale' when discussing the warlord is mostly a call for differentiation in language aesthetic. The warlord can be inspirational, as well as a boon to morale, without having to use those terms
I really liked that leaders in 4e could be something other than a cleric - our group started 4e saying "we'll, we need someone to play the cleric". So, when it became time for me to play, I intentionally played a bard. I was thrilled - clerics are fine, but it was fun to play something else. So, while both bard and warlord shouldn't heal as well as the cleric, I'd love it if they can heal enough that people don't feel obligated to play the cleric.
I really liked that leaders in 4e could be something other than a cleric - our group started 4e saying "we'll, we need someone to play the cleric". So, when it became time for me to play, I intentionally played a bard. I was thrilled - clerics are
I would be utterly satisfied if bard healing was something equivalent to 4E's Song of Rest (boosting natural healing in some way whenever HD is spent during down time), and warlord healing was something equivalent to 4E's Temporary HP mechanic (adding HP riders that exceed normal HP limits in some way during the course of a battle).
I would be utterly satisfied if bard healing was something equivalent to 4E's Song of Rest (boosting natural healing in some way whenever HD is spent during down time), and warlord healing was something equivalent to 4E's Temporary HP mechanic (addin
A warlord granting temp HPs like could be as good as a healing one.
Adamant Entertainment did something similar. They took the 4E concept of the warlord and altered it to make it fit into pathfinder.www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/3rd-party-class...A warlord granting temp HPs like could be as good as a healing one.
I would be utterly satisfied if bard healing was something equivalent to 4E's Song of Rest (boosting natural healing in some way whenever HD is spent during down time), and warlord healing was something equivalent to 4E's Temporary HP mechanic (adding HP riders that exceed normal HP limits in some way during the course of a battle).
I will be extremely annoyed if the classes that are supposed to be able to be functional healers are not EQUALLY functional healers.
There is no amount of THP, and no amount of between-combat-recovery-boosting, that balances against looking at an ally who is on the ground with negative HP and allowing him to go to positive HP, stand up, and stab the guy who knocked him down.
I will be extremely annoyed if the classes that are supposed to be able to be functional healers are not EQUALLY functional healers.There is no amount of THP, and no amount of between-combat-recovery-boosting, that balances against looking at an ally
I will be extremely annoyed if the classes that are supposed to be able to be functional healers are not EQUALLY functional healers.
There is no amount of THP, and no amount of between-combat-recovery-boosting, that balances against looking at an ally who is on the ground with negative HP and allowing him to go to positive HP, stand up, and stab the guy who knocked him down.
I understand the frustration, but I've more and more come around to viewing the ability to awaken someone from unconsciousness and the brink of death to be nothing short of divine intervention (thusly the result of divine magic).
From the perspective of it being a game, an equal ability to 'heal' makes sense. From the perspective of it being a narrative, an equal ability to 'heal' does not.
I guess it really boils down to whether or not bards and warlords are still intended to be able to be functional healers. -- We shall see.
I understand the frustration, but I've more and more come around to viewing the ability to awaken someone from unconsciousness and the brink of death to be nothing short of divine intervention (thusly the result of divine magic).From the perspective
You have a truly limited exposure to narratives if you think that's the case.
More to the point though, even if you personally want to only play that way, it would be both fundamentally unjust and at odds with the stated goals of the game for you to argue that your one limited personal narrative should be inflicted on everyone.
You have a truly limited exposure to narratives if you think that's the case.More to the point though, even if you personally want to only play that way, it would be both fundamentally unjust and at odds with the stated goals of the game for you to a
You have a truly limited exposure to narratives if you think that's the case.
More to the point though, even if you personally want to only play that way, it would be both fundamentally unjust and at odds with the stated goals of the game for you to argue that your one limited personal narrative should be inflicted on everyone.
Yeah, why is mitigating something like abstract hitpoints limited to the class you play anyway?
oh, cuz its D&D
Yeah, why is mitigating something like abstract hitpoints limited to the class you play anyway?oh, cuz its D&D
You have a truly limited exposure to narratives if you think that's the case.
Referencing a narrative that enlightens would be a far more positively reinforcing tactic.
More to the point though, even if you personally want to only play that way, it would be both fundamentally unjust and at odds with the stated goals of the game for you to argue that your one limited personal narrative should be inflicted on everyone.
I haven't stated that I, personally, want to only play that way. I submitted that my view of dealing with the abstract nature of hitpoints in the game has begun to evolve away from the idea that warlords should have the ability to awaken an unconscious and dying ally. One is to infer that I've previously held the belief that warlords are well within their right to do so, but I'm beginning to come around as the game redefines healing, magic, and personal effect.
It's still a playtest, and we haven't seen what the warlord OR bard are going to bring to the table, so my verdict is still out.
Referencing a narrative that enlightens would be a far more positively reinforcing tactic. :)I haven't stated that I, personally, want to only play that way. I submitted that my view of dealing with the abstract nature of hitpoints in the game has be
Yeah, why is mitigating something like abstract hitpoints limited to the class you play anyway?
oh, cuz its D&D
Just my opinion, but once you're prone, unconscious and dying, the time for mitigation of HP has passed and the time for mitigation of death is at hand. Hitpoints are abstract, but death and dying are not. They are, in effect, mutually exclusive once you're down.
Just my opinion, but once you're prone, unconscious and dying, the time for mitigation of HP has passed and the time for mitigation of death is at hand. Hitpoints are abstract, but death and dying are not. They are, in effect, mutually exclusive once
Yeah, why is mitigating something like abstract hitpoints limited to the class you play anyway?
oh, cuz its D&D
Just my opinion, but once you're prone, unconscious and dying, the time for mitigation of HP has passed and the time for mitigation of death is at hand. Hitpoints are abstract, but death and dying are not. They are, in effect, mutually exclusive once you're down.
Haven't you ever seen an action film? Unless you die, you weren't actually dying, it just looked like you were.
Just my opinion, but once you're prone, unconscious and dying, the time for mitigation of HP has passed and the time for mitigation of death is at hand. Hitpoints are abstract, but death and dying are not. They are, in effect, mutually exclusive once
Haven't you ever seen an action film? Unless you die, you weren't actually dying, it just looked like you were.
LOL Yes, of course!
But the game explicitly defines death and dying as death and dying, not 'looking like you're dead or dying'. It's an actual state of being, threatening the life of your character.
LOL Yes, of course! ;)But the game explicitly defines death and dying as death and dying, not 'looking like you're dead or dying'. It's an actual state of being, threatening the life of your character.
Thanks for identifying that you were the suggester for the idea to use HD as a possible limit on ED use. I think Wrecan had some similar ideas.
Not I. My suggestions is that warlord healing only affect each recipient once per day. I'm also a fan of Temporary HP. Personally, I think of martial healing as a very minor part of the warlord arsenal. For me, the warlord signature is granting other characters off-turn actions and movement.
Not I. My suggestions is that warlord healing only affect each recipient once per day. I'm also a fan of Temporary HP. Personally, I think of martial healing as a very minor part of the warlord arsenal. For me, the warlord signature is granting o
A reasonable position, but if martial healing is powered by ED, all makes warlords have effectively unlimited healing since they could heal every round as their ED are renewed. This is unbalancing to me and makes warlord a better healer than an optimized healer cleric.
True. That's a failing of the "ED" system. Obviously, the warlord will have to have a different mechanic.
True. That's a failing of the "ED" system. Obviously, the warlord will have to have a different mechanic.
I would be utterly satisfied if bard healing was something equivalent to 4E's Song of Rest (boosting natural healing in some way whenever HD is spent during down time), and warlord healing was something equivalent to 4E's Temporary HP mechanic (adding HP riders that exceed normal HP limits in some way during the course of a battle).
I will be extremely annoyed if the classes that are supposed to be able to be functional healers are not EQUALLY functional healers.
There is no amount of THP, and no amount of between-combat-recovery-boosting, that balances against looking at an ally who is on the ground with negative HP and allowing him to go to positive HP, stand up, and stab the guy who knocked him down.
Exactly. The Cleric can be "best" healing in the same sense the fighter is "best" fighter. It can heal slightly more or slightly more often. But it shouldn't be the only healer, or so much bettter at healing that it becomes obligatory.
I will be extremely annoyed if the classes that are supposed to be able to be functional healers are not EQUALLY functional healers.There is no amount of THP, and no amount of between-combat-recovery-boosting, that balances against looking at an ally
A warlord granting temp HPs like could be as good as a healing one.
Wow, that's horrible. It's a fighter that just stands there and passively gives out some bonuses that slowly get bigger. The class equivalent of the "+X magic items" D&D Next was trying to get away from.
And, it's inspiration power is "daily," I thought that was anathema for martial characters outside of 4e? It's not a good or interesting dailly power, but it's still daily.
Wow, that's horrible. It's a fighter that just stands there and passively gives out some bonuses that slowly get bigger. The class equivalent of the "+X magic items" D&D Next was trying to get away from. And, it's inspiration power is "daily," I
I still reject the THP "compromise" (it is no such thing) utterly.
The THP "compromise" is still just "take healing away from the Warlord." The Warlord already granted temporary hit points, in addition to healing. Taking away healing but letting the warlord grant temps is just taking away healing.
I DO see the "healing every round is too much" argument as fair though.
But agree that Martial Dailies will bring too much whining to be worth the effort of defending (even though they make more sense than the stupidity of magical dailies).
Bringing back Vancian didnt annoy anyone?
The THP "compromise" is still just "take healing away from the Warlord." The Warlord already granted temporary hit points, in addition to healing. Taking away healing but letting the warlord grant temps is just taking away healing.Bringing back Van
Terrible idea. Bards are repositories of oral traditions trained by Druids in that lore, A sort of communications network in the Celtic tribal culture. If they use magic its Druid magic like in 1e when the Bard was rightly a hard class to get into taking a long time and used Druid spells.
Warlords are a brand new class that does better than the old fighter what the old fighter was supposed to do be a party leader.
Bards arent' leaders. they Satire leaders back them up or make them fall, but arent leaders thmselves.
We don't force the druid to adhere to any historical reference, why would we do so with the bard?
all classes adhere to historical referene to some etent. Paladins arent christian butthey are crusaders for the lwful good cause and ther e is a certain similarity there their powers like 'laying on hands' and 'smiting evil' are very evocative ot that soruce of inspriations.
The Druid is based mostly on mis-conceptions about the historical druid but we really have little more than mis-conceptions to go on, those of Ceasar when he faught them and those fo the crazy englishmen who staged a revival of their imagined version of the religion in the 18th and 19th century and the similar neo-pagan revival of today. given that the druids actualy been pretty good at times. The AD&D druid was not so terribly far off the historical inspiration not to the degreee that dmgorgon wants to drag the bard in his quest to gank the warlord anyway.
Theres certainly room in next for the Warlord and for the Bard and for the Druid and no reason they cant all be faithful to thier original incarnations in the game.
We don't force the druid to adhere to any historical reference, why would we do so with the bard? [/quote]all classes adhere to historical referene to some etent. Paladins arent christian butthey are crusaders for the lwful good cause and ther e is
Whenever I see people on here arguing about what a Class IS, I always end up with a headache from my eyes rolling so much... People are fighting about the D&DN bard and warlord before we've even seen them.
+1. Lets wait till they give us a playtest version of either, that we can test. Milk hasn't been poured yet, let alone spilt.
+1. Lets wait till they give us a playtest version of either, that we can test. Milk hasn't been poured yet, let alone spilt.
I still reject the THP "compromise" (it is no such thing) utterly.
The THP "compromise" is still just "take healing away from the Warlord." The Warlord already granted temporary hit points, in addition to healing. Taking away healing but letting the warlord grant temps is just taking away healing.
Exactly.
The THP "compromise" is still just "take healing away from the Warlord." The Warlord already granted temporary hit points, in addition to healing. Taking away healing but letting the warlord grant temps is just taking away healing.[/quote]Exactly.
I would be utterly satisfied if bard healing was something equivalent to 4E's Song of Rest (boosting natural healing in some way whenever HD is spent during down time), and warlord healing was something equivalent to 4E's Temporary HP mechanic (adding HP riders that exceed normal HP limits in some way during the course of a battle).
This. If the bard can do this, inspire allies, fascinate/otherwise mess with enemies, fight and be good at skills, it's a bard. If it can't do at least 90% of all that, it isn't a bard, IMO.
This. If the bard can do this, inspire allies, fascinate/otherwise mess with enemies, fight and be good at skills, it's a bard. If it can't do at least 90% of all that, it isn't a bard, IMO.
