Why we need Warlords in D&DN

[MichaelSomething]

Of course the Warlord deserves a spot in 5E! If not in core, then in an expansion at least!

 

[Dausuul]

I'm not real fond of the "warlord" name, but nor do I like any of the alternatives. "Marshal" has all of the same problems as well as being generally less cool. "Knight" is a fine class name... for a different class. More paladin, less tactician. Iron Heroes called them "hunters," which was just bizarre.

If anyone has a better name for the class, I'll embrace it, but I can't think of one. And like Vayden says, "warlord" now has some history behind it, even if it didn't spring full-formed from the head of Gary Gygax.

 

[Vayden]

even if it didn't spring full-formed from the head of Gary Gygax.

Quoted for awesomeness. Also, I think I know why Knight will never succeed as a class name - everything you traditionally picture as a "Knight" - heavy armor, fearsome in melee, etc is pretty much already covered under "Fighter". The only thing left is chivalry, which means Knight will always be doomed to some sort of prestige class or 3rd run splatbook status.

 

[RHGreen]

I like the Warlord, but I've always thought that probably the best way to deal with the leader/healer problem would be to give every class those leader/healer like abilities. Then you wouldn't have a single player forced into being the healer.

You can still have clerics and warlords, they'd just be better at it than everyone else.

 

[I'm A Banana]

It's good to not have healing associated only with one class.

But why should healing be associated with any roles? Why shouldn't the fighter be able to say "rub some dirt in it!" and have an effect that "heals?"

Or, to keep some verisimilitude, why not have the effect grant temporary HP or somesuch?

Look, wanting to preserve the Warlord is, IMO, a bit myopic. It's too focused on the minutae of "OMG NON-CLERIC HEALING!" (which, BTW, has been around since at least the druid and the bard and the Healing Potion were invented). That's a great feature, but it's not...class-worthy, IMO.

There should be no reason that, if you care deeply about having a fighter/healing, you can't take a fighter, swap out defender mechanics for leader mechanics, and call it a day. There doesn't need to be 500 dedicated powers and an entire class based around the idea of "fighter, but with healing."

Add onto that the problems some folks had with martial healing in the first place, and you're in a place where options like the warlord need to be opted into, rather than assumed as part of the game.

And even if you do want to opt into them, there's probably better, more economical, less blargh ways to present them.

 

[Wormwood]

It's good to not have healing associated only with one class.

Oh hells yeah.

I'm on record saying that D&D shouldn't *need* a healing class. I love the Warlord more than any other class but I'd cheerfully give it up if it accompanied the cleric on the ash-pile of history.

edit: although to be honest, during my time as a Warlord I only spent 20% or so healing. The rest of the time I was making everyone else MOAR AWESOME.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm on record saying that D&D shouldn't *need* a healing class. I love the Warlord more than any other class but I'd cheerfully give it up if it accompanied the cleric on the ash-pile of history.

There's some evidence pointing to 5e not having "roles" in the way that 4e does -- that healing can be a part of every character's contributions, not just one. No "healing class." No "defending class." No "damage class."

That said, I'd imagine that a "stripped-down pure D&D" would have a Cleric, and not have a Warlord. But I'd also imagine a dial you can turn from "only clerics ever heal" all the way up to "anyone can heal anyone." So I think the need for non-cleric healing will be addressed, even if the baseline rules don't worry too much about it.

 

[Knightfall]

The concept of a non-cleric healer (ahem...leader) was so appealing that the Warlord was my first class---and the only one I played until 30.

I'd hate to see it go---especially in some nod to tradition.

I, on the other hand, greatly enjoyed the Marshal in 3.5 and would like to see its successor in 5e.

The 3rd Edition Marshal class is one of my favorite 3E creations. It blew my mind the first time I read it. Thus, when I learned that the 4E Warlord class was going to be based on it, I was thrilled. And, I did like the "concept" they came up with for the 4E class. I just wish I'd liked the entire game system. Alas, I did not.

Stiil, if the designers can come up with a way to combine the best parts of the 3E Marshal and the 4E Warlord for 5E, I will be very impressed. I think it the one new class that deserves to be considered a core class (in the PHB) as long as one of the iconic D&D classes doesn't get cut to fit it in.

 

[Droogie]

There should be no reason that, if you care deeply about having a fighter/healing, you can't take a fighter, swap out defender mechanics for leader mechanics, and call it a day. There doesn't need to be 500 dedicated powers and an entire class based around the idea of "fighter, but with healing."

If 5e class design is similar to Essentials, I can see Warlord becoming a build rather than a dedicated class, which would be fine with me, and I really liked my Dark Sun Warlord.

WoTC is getting a bit more bendy with the role concept, and if Warlord (or Knight or whathaveyou) ends up being the charismatic support fighter, then I'm all for it.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

For me, the Warlord concept, be it as a class on its own, or a subclass of Fighter, is something that I have been looking for in the game since I began playing 2e. The 3.5 version was interesting, but in 4th, I thought the idea had hit its stride.

On a personal note, I think it would be a real shame if 5e reduces one of my favourite characters back to what she was in 2e by necessity (of concept) - a mechanically terrible fighter with high Charisma & Intelligence.