• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

Mike Mearls Happy Fun Hour: The Warlord

Yaarel

🇮🇱He-Mage
It seems to me, in the Norse culture, the ‘jarl’ is a warlord.

Actually, jarl might be a good name for the class or archetype. Many players will think of the classic D&D adventure ‘The Frost Giant Jarl’.

Etymologically, the name jarl relates to the verb jara, ‘to fight’. It literally means something like ‘the devise that makes fighters fight’.

The jarl is a democratically elected leader, a kind of president of a realm. Especially, he is the commander and chief of the military (army/navy). Each clan has their own militia. But the clans entrust their respective soldiers to the leadership of the jarl, so as to form a multi-clan army. The Norse value courage, and when in battle, the jarl will tend to lead from the front − albeit in a smart way.

But there is also a connotation of granting extra attacks, in terms of organizing military formations in live time.

Interestingly, the term jarl (earlier erilaʀ) is also sometimes used for the writer of a runic inscription, connoting education, knowledge, the sacred animistic worldview, and military tactics. The inscriber is like a military leader commanding an army of runic letters into a powerful, meaningful, formation. In addition to warriors, there is even a connotation of marshaling mages, with certain inscriptions that record magical intentions.

The jarl lends itself to two classes. A nonmagical military orchestrator, with governmental skills.

Plus even a psionic military leader (mainly spá prescience and luck, and galdr mostly for abjuration and healing, even resurrection, relating to the Eighteen Songs), who perform psionic songs and psionic runic rituals. The voice is a kind of psionic focus to formulate thoughts. Not all jarl were thought to be psychic, but certain ones were, especially the revered ones.

The aboriginal Norse culture are a direct democracy, where all men and women in the realm gather at the parliament (þing) to vote. This means, there are family members of a jarl or former jarls, who are skilled at military tactics and coordination, who are currently not in office, and who may well be on a viking military expedition, or whatever.

Anyway, there is a nice connection between the viking era flavor of the jarl, and the D&D warlord class or archetype.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
...

I am completely neutral on the topic. I have never favored it as class or subclass, nor have I been for or against the warlord class as a whole. I only ask that if you wish to have it, you be able to justify it and handle the various objections, while shaping it to be something that performs its intended purpose properly. I don't like sloppy design.

...

I just wanted to point out that forcing only one side in a discussion to justify a class and handle various objections against it isn't being neutral. It's being pro status-quo which is decidedly non-neutral when it comes to adding new content. True neutral would be focusing your justification seeking and objection handling on those that don't want it just as much as you do so for those that want it.

Speaking of justification for a class. At this point, the Warlord class has more justification and more handled objections in favor of it than any class from the 5e PHB.
 


FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
Mechanically, the concept is simple, very flexible - the subclass can give its class features to other characters - and on-point to meet the stated must-have lists I've seen (looks like it checks all the boxes). But really, I don't really have to have reasons - and for that matter neither do you. I can see it working for me, and still not working for others. I will, however, choose to believe that their objections are solely subjective because the framework meets the goals as stated..

It's weird to call something solely subjective when numerous explicit reasons were given. Almost sounds like you are trying to minimize those explicit reasons without actually having to deal with them...

Don't get me wrong there is a subjective component when it comes to how early the abilities need to show up by and how strong they need to be. But a couple of subjective components hardly makes something solely subjective or even mostly subjective. The Purple Dragon Knight fails on those 2 fronts. It'd be just like a Wizard class that only started getting spells at 7th level and then only started getting level 1 spells at that time. Such a class would even meet all the checkboxes for being a wizard but it would be a wizard that no wizard fan would be happy with because it gets its defining abilities to slow and they aren't strong enough when you get them.

I think the moral of the story is that same goals ought to be obvious even if unstated.

I feel like you didn't actually read my original post, because I actually addressed some of these:

* Additional Second Winds that are granted to other characters (only - the Warlord can't use them directly)
* Grant attacks in your Attack action to other characters (and to be clear - that might mean all of them)
* Give someone else the Action Surge

The overall power level for the party isn't any greater here (give or take situational advantages/disadvantages) because the Warlord is "giving away" offense to other PCs. No net power gain/loss on paper, with the expectation that it will be a net gain as players use positioning and tactics to maximize the benefits.

It sounds to me like your basic premises about how the PDK's abilities actually work are so screwed up here that we are just going to talk past each other until that part gets taken care of.
 
Last edited:


FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
This is why I think the Purple Dragon Knight needs a few superiority dice for a limited choice of Warlord manoeuvres. Even if you make them d6 like the feat, it adds a bit more utility per short rest.

Maybe you could add a class feature that allows them to forego one of their attacks to use a Manoeuvre without spending a SD so they can sacrifice some damage dealing for more at will tactical choices? It could make doubling up on sneak attack an at will problem I suppose but it does lead you more into lazy Lord territory.

Early it may help. Max level, A PDK is pretty beast at the warlord role when compared with a fighter. Grants 12 attacks. Heals about 200 in the day. Helps with saving throws too. Just in raw numbers a battlemaster that granted 12 attacks (while giving up 12 of his) and adds 78 damage to them and could grant maybe 69 temp hp on average on top of that. The PDK doesn't trade attacks to grant allies them.

All in all, they just made the PDK progress in warlord abilities much too slowly or it may have been received a lot better by warlord fans. That's why in my opinion the PDK at max level is about the top end of what you can do numbers wise with a warlord subclass of fighter, which makes it feel pretty limiting IMO.
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
Fighter in Leather Armor with proficiency in Stealth and Thieves Tools. Done. One cat burglar. Oh, wait, I guess he needs Athletics too since he needs to climb. That's a flat out class skill, so, that's not a problem. Criminal Background gives me Thieves tools and Stealth. Done. Next.

Gentleman Thief - again, not an actual class in 5e. That's a Fighter with a Spy or Charlatan background for Deception and Thieves Tools. Burn a feat for 3 Skill proficiencies and we're good to go.

Street Rat - wow, softballs. What is a Street Rat? Certainly not a character you'd expect to be able to do more damage in a single hit than any other character out there. But, anyway, again, just a background.

Everything you just listed is a background. Backgrounds that 100% cover the mechanical aspects of the concept.

Good grief, after this much time, can we PLEASE stop with the whole "why are we even talking about this" crap? Please stop trying to shut down conversations that don't affect you. You don't want a warlord. Fine and dandy. No one is going to make you use this.

What we want is an actual class (or subclass) that we can have a shared experience with and be able to discuss without constantly having to justify why we're having the discussion in the first place.

Thank you Hussar. You pretty much said it for me so now I don't have to.
 

Tony Vargas

Legend
So what you're saying is Warlord should, in fact, be the only class in the game?
That it has been, at this point, the most thoroughly vetted class in the games history.

If you were to evenly apply to all classes the various proposed bars and qualifiers for inclusion that have been proposed against the Warlord, a lot of classes that are in the PH would fall out before it. The point isn't the Warlord is the ideal class or anything, just that the various trumped up justifications for excluding it are completely bogus.
 
Last edited:

Yes of course. Obviosuly that's what i'm saying....

If you can't detect the sarcasm in this post then something is wrong with you...

No, I got the sarcasm just fine.

It's just that if you keep pulling the sarcasm card I'm liable to just straight up stop listing to a thing you say. If you want to say something, just say it and don't hide behind weasel words.

That it has been, at this point, the most thoroughly vetted class in the games history.

Ah yes, 10 people in a dumb internet argument is the most thorough possible vetting.
 


Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top