The Warlord, about it's past present and future, pitfalls and solutions. (Please calling all warlord players)

MoonSong · Feb 15, 2013

One of the biggest contributions 4e gave to the game in general was no doubt this new and interesting class. while some part of it ended up hurting some people's suspension of disbelief (myslef included) no doubt this class is awesome. Few other classes convey that sense of team play and colaboration, and I think it has been a clear omission in previous editions.

Now that Next is in the works, what would you say is the soul of the Warlord, it's baremonst essence that has to be kept and captured in the new edition? What do you fear are the biggest pitfalls to overcome in the translation to the new edition?

[For the sake of pacefull conversation, please no "but the warlord is not a class" or another degradatory comments about the class, it is ok not to like the warlord, but please don't derail this thread with edition warring or enforcing minimalist thought. This is supossed to be a constructive thread.]

Blackwarder · Feb 15, 2013

Having read the OP I apologies in advance but I don't think that the warlord should be a class in Next, and I played a warlord for two years in 4e so I'm not from the warlord hating crowd.

when I think of a warlord I think about someone who lead large groups of men, considering that I don't want to play the advanced tactical rules module in next (the place where the warlord shined) having some sort of a class with granular combat bonuses would be out of place in Next IMO.

What I would like to have is a warlord speciality that will focuse on hiring henchmen and leading large groups of combatant, I would like it to be able to be taken by any class so you could have a warlord fighter, warlord paladin and warlord wizard.

Warder

Argyle King · Feb 15, 2013

I think the soul of the Warlord is the cerebral aspect of war. Some leaders are successful because they have a mind for tactics and strategy; they've been trained to think in terms of battlefield victory rather than thinking in terms of limited to killing the foe in front of them (though they may very well be skilled at that as well.) Some leaders are successful because they have an innate talent to inspire greatness in others. Some even have both qualities.

An interesting idea for the Warlord might be a class which has combat dice similar to the fighter, but grants their uses to those around him rather than using them himself. While the warlord might very well be an excellent combatant in his own right, I believe the heart and soul of the warlord is the ability to enhance the abilities of those around him and think in terms of the battlefield as a whole.

Obryn · Feb 15, 2013

As for myself, the warlord can work as a bit of a litmus test. It basically needs 3 things:

(1) Exist. It's one of the key classes of 4e, and essential to my vision of modern D&D
(2) Help its allies in a very direct fashion - more than just auras.
(3) Heal.

Pretty much, missing any of these is a (further) indicator I'm not that interested in Next as a whole because it's not what I want from a new edition of D&D.

-O

(Psi)SeveredHead · Feb 15, 2013

KaiiLurker said:
One of the biggest contributions 4e gave to the game in general was no doubt this new and interesting class. while some part of it ended up hurting some people's suspension of disbelief (myslef included) no doubt this class is awesome. Few other classes convey that sense of team play and colaboration, and I think it has been a clear omission in previous editions.

Now that Next is in the works, what would you say is the soul of the Warlord, it's baremonst essence that has to be kept and captured in the new edition? What do you fear are the biggest pitfalls to overcome in the translation to the new edition?

I think the warlord needs:
1) Something to encourage PCs to not take a high physical stat, and instead take high Int and/or Cha.
2) Maneuvers to give allies boosts. My favorite kind of power was Surprise Attack and Hammer and Anvil, since they let the warlord and his friend attack at the same time.
3) Healing is not necessary, if D&DN gets a sensible healing system. (In 4e, I'm a fan of making warlord-flavored NPCs. They never have the healing abilities, but often have things like Surprise Attack instead.)

Manbearcat · Feb 15, 2013

Thematically: Needs to be -

1) A cool-headed warrior who leads from the front, with poise in the face of all manner of adversity.
2) A tactician that can tactically change the scope of battle in real time.
3) A strategic magician who can dictate the terms of a fight before the enemy even knows they are in one.
4) A bastion of courage who instills hope and bulwarks morale when normal men fail and demoralize their side.
5) Someone who knows wish buttons to push to provoke surrender and has the mental acumen to draw up terms of surrender and make the other side understand they are lucky to have those terms and wise to accept them.

Resource-wise: Needs to be able to -

1) Heal morale damage.
2) Prevent, or at least buff resistance to, fear effects.
3) Improve the overall action economy of his side; immediate actions allowing ally attacks or strategic advance, withdraw, or maneuvering.
4) Have skill in warfare based non-combat resolution; parlays, treaties, strategic use of troops (such as recon teams). This needs to have overlap here with other general knowledges and general parlance. Perception and spatial awareness is likely key here as well. The ability to buff others in his areas of expertise; or allow them advantage in their own wouldn't be the worst idea.

Will Doyle · Feb 16, 2013

I'm a big fan of the warlord. That said, I'm not sure the class needs to heal. Even in 4E I'd prefer the warlord to grant temporary HP through "Inspiring Word" rather than real HP.

In play, the warlord is primarily a controller who affects allies. He grants extra attacks to the group's biggest hitters, typically by making a basic attack of his own (e.g. Hammer and Anvil), or by simply forgoing his attack to let another PC attack (Commander's Strike). He allows allies to move into flanking positions when he attacks (Wolf Pack Tactics), grants defensive bonuses through attacks (Hold the Line), or grants extra damage/to hit to an ally by landing a blow of his own (Warlord's Favor).

To me, these powers define the warlord during play - not healing. And so far, I don't see any reason why that essence couldn't be captured as a core class in 5e.

Argyle King · Feb 16, 2013

It's worth mentioning that the Marshal class from 3rd Edition was akin to 4th's Warlord. We're not limited to solely 4th when it comes to things which would define a 'warlord.'

I support Warlord healing for the following reasons:
1) It makes sense in the context of how D&D HP are defined.
2) I find it far more fulfilling and interesting to be able to play a healer who can also hold his own in battle (Warlord) than to be a healbot (some 4th Edition Cleric builds.)

Jeff Carlsen · Feb 16, 2013

I think that the warlord and the bard could be merged into a new class. There's a lot of conceptual overlap, but the warlord is more tactically focused, whereas the bard if more socially focused. Combinded, you would have a diverse, charisma based class with room for both mundane and magical abilities. Players could then build their warbard to be more of the tactical field commander, or more of the traveling performer. Ultimately, the abilities each would use would be much the same.

Garthanos · Feb 16, 2013

Blackwarder said:
when I think of a warlord I think about someone who lead large groups of men

Gibberish... that isnt the warlord class you are nit picking a name rank and there could be higher level extensions of the Warlord which does it differently. But I am holding skepticism on your claims over all purely because you seem rather clueless about the class.

Mod Note: Describing things as "gibberish" and calling people "clueless" are generally not the hallmarks of awesome conversation-having. Please be civil, even in disagreement -- KM.