Why we need Warlords in D&DN

[Wormwood]

I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean. "No one wants to be the cleric" is an actual problem that actual people have repeatedly brought up over the years.

Played 4e since launch and I've never seen a cleric.

Warlords, bards, paladins, shamans and all manner of other multiclass-healers have come and gone, but nobody wanted to play ("be stuck with") a cleric.

Cleric = healer in a lot of minds. Let's deal with that and move on.

 

[Aramax]

although healing is part of it ,I actually like the fluff and roleplaying aspects of warlord,I dont care if they heal or give temp hp,its the JOB that turns me on!

 

[GSHamster]

The thing is though, to me the Warlord is basically the answer to a problem that didn't really exist, other than people who are just hung up on a cleric being a "cleric".

It was originally pretty much a fighting orientated class that could also heal. Which seems to be what the Warlord is.

I disagree with this. A huge part of the cleric is the emphasis on religion, on being the servant of a god or pantheon.

The warlord doesn't have that aspect, and that's a large enough difference to warrant a separate class, in my view.

 

[Aldarc]

Wormwood...and the rest...the charecter that wades into the thick of combat and beats on things with his mace (or SWORD) is called a CLERIC.

I don't see why it will be any different in 5E.

Really? I always thought that was called a FIGHTER.

 

[Falling Icicle]

If the warlord is in 5e at all, I hope it is optional and nowhere near the core book. A class that non-magically talks people out of their injuries completely breaks any sense of immersion for me. I also hate the name. No longer can I say that a fighter or barbarian villain is a "warlord" without causing confusion.

 

[Kaodi]

The warlord should probably be a class that focuses not on healing damage but on avoiding damage in the first place. After all, in real life the side that wins is the side that wins fewer guys to the medic in the first place.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I hope the warlord earned his spot at the table right next to fighter and thief. I also hope Warlock is standing next to the wizard proud as can be.

The warlord is what I wanted to play since 2e. I have played 4 of them in 4e, one to level 27. They need to be in core PHB1, and they need to have a place in everyworld.

 

[Thorgrim Sekkrhrafn]

The warlord suffers from basic plausibility issues (how does one produce those effects without magic?), an inappropriate niche for D&D (a character class defined by his ability to affect allies?), and, on top of that, a dubious name. Marshal, while not great, was more appropriate. This is a great example of why creating a class based on a purely mechanical rationale (the perceived need for healing) is not a good idea.

The original impetus (an idea that a party needs certain roles filled and that healing and buffing is one of those roles) was not good design, and I wouldn't allow a marshal (or warlord if you like) in my game.

I would, however, like to see a warlock early on.

I loved the idea of the 3.5E Marshal but the implementation of the 4E Warlord left me a bit cold and for the very reason you brought up--the design-role-by-mechanic seemed utterly forced to me and simply added to my impression (which grew with time) that 4E was more a superhero game than fantasy.

Now my campaigns, dating as far back as the mid-Eighties, always solved the problem of perceived need for healing by either relying heavily on the Cleric (and isn't that why you have him? ;-) ) or a sub-class (later a prestige class) I created call the Chirurg (specialized Cleric who's heavy on healing spells). I never felt like it was necessary and never pushed those solutions on the PCs; I just let them know it was an option.

I guess I'm one of those guys who finds the 4E idea of Perfect Balance (classes, races, everything...) to be a little...odd. I can't recall any party I ever served in as being anything close to balanced. It just wasn't a priority. Your party either successfully managed to overcome the encounter or it didn't.

Maybe I'm just getting a tad bit fossilized in my old age...

 

[Thorgrim Sekkrhrafn]

Which is why 'Marshal' for me works better. However, they both have the same problem: how can a young pup, greener than an Elven fruit salad, be called a 'marshal' or a 'warlord' with a straight face? 'What're you, Aubric?' 'Me? I'm a Marshal in the Order of St. Denys the Dastardly!' 'Oh...so you're the band leader, right? The guide arm?' 'No! I'm the Marshal!'

Silence...

'Right...'

 

[Spinachcat]

I enjoyed the Warlord in 4e. I would like to see something similar in 5e, but I am okay with them being a tactical leader instead of a healer.