• 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!

D&D 5E D&D podcast!

I've often heard the warlord described as the leader, the person leading from the frontlines and inspiring their allies.
Which is a lovely description for what they do, not what they are. Things you "do" have been explicitly and deliberately pulled aside by the designers for specialities, so in that respect leading is better as a speciality. You can really imagine the party leader, the tactical genius, being a fighter or cleric or even a ranger. William Wallace might be a barbarian with the leader speciality while Aaragorn might be a ranger with the same. A "leader" or "tactician" isn't necessarily the basis of a class but the basis of a character.

What else is a warlord? Well, the grant actions, aid allies, and manipulate the battlefield.
But those are individual powers. Spells. You wouldn't describe a wizard as "the guy who casts lightning bolt" as that applies equally to the sorcerer and a cleric of say Thor.
Exclusive spells aren't a particularly good way of distinguishing a class. And it just leads to bloat and needless overlap in powers.

Aside from what they do and spells, what is a warlord?
They use heavy armour and melee weapons. Wee. They might have fewer hitpoints than a fighter and possibly more skills.
I picture them a little like samurai with a flag or standard on their back. Most art tends to represent them via gestures. Warlords point. That's the most archetypal look to the warlord: the warlord point.

What defines the warlord outside of combat? What is their role in the world? Not just at 10th level but at 1st through 20th. If Bilbo rushing out of BagEnd is a level 1 rogue, what's a level 1 warlord?
What does a warlord look like? How is it different than a fighter? Looking at existing specialities in the game, what does a defender warlord look like? O a reaper warlord? Or a skulker?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

D'karr

Adventurer
I've often heard the warlord described as the leader, the person leading from the frontlines and inspiring their allies.
Which is a lovely description for what they do, not what they are.

Classes have always been what you do not what you are.

A wizards casts spells from memory, a sorcerer casts spells innately. A fighter, fights. Those are all descriptors of what the classes do.

In 4e at least the roles, where designed to describe what you do best in combat. You could choose a fighter, his most effective role in combat was to defend. But out of combat you could be whatever the heck you wanted. Even in combat you could stretch that definition quite a bit depending on the options you chose at each level.

Applying the yardstick of a "class is what you are" to the warlord alone is ridiculous, and disingenuous when all classes are defined by what they do.
 

Sage Genesis

First Post
If you're going to make the argument that Ranger, Monk, etc. are thematically "stronger" than Warlord, KM, you probably could just say that.

Indeed, and he'll have to agree to disagree on it.

The Barbarian is too different too absorb into the Fighter, because the Barbarian is angry and quick and tough. Yet the Warlord who can literally make people win the fight without ever drawing a weapon can be easily absorbed into the Fighter because he's not so different at all.

I cannot and will not ever be able to comprehend that mindset. To me all this talk is like people trying to argue that water isn't wet so I'll just bow out I guess. There's nothing here for me to see or say.
 

I think the Warlord issues are a bigger deal in regards to the bigger picture(throwing 4E fans under the bus, how healing is to work system-wide) than any issues specific to just the Warlord.
 


Blackwarder

Adventurer
I think the Warlord issues are a bigger deal in regards to the bigger picture(throwing 4E fans under the bus, how healing is to work system-wide) than any issues specific to just the Warlord.

I'm one of the aforementioned 4e fans (rabid fan tbh) and I don't feel like I've been thrown under the bus, so please stop talking as if your views represent my views.

Warder

(Don't take it personaly, I'm only quoting you out of ease I might have quoted some one else's post since I've read things like that countless times")
 
Last edited:

jimtillman

Explorer
the more next goes away from 4th the more I am concerned that its not for me, In my group the warlord is one of the favorite classes.
 

TwoSix

"Diegetics", by L. Ron Gygax
My other particular issue is I don't understand why removing any class, at all, is necessary. This is supposed to be the all inclusive edition, right? If you're going to refine, then refine. Boil it down to 3 or 4 core classes, then throw in modularity on top. Tons of refinement like PF archetypes, multiple build options, and robust themes and specialties for extra flavor.

If you're going to make narrowly thematic classes, then make them. Barbarian, Assassin, Illusionist, Warlord, Bard, Sorcerer, throw them all in. Why wouldn't you? If you're not giving them a ton of build options (and if you're going narrow, why would you?), classes shouldn't be more than 2 pages each. Stop trying to shoehorn in clerics with 12 domains into the same system as one with rangers and monks. Take an approach and commit.
 

They've committed, but to tradition. Wizards, Clerics, and Druids traditionally have near infinite options. Everybody else gets the shaft. Because tradition. Also, because magic.
 

TwoSix

"Diegetics", by L. Ron Gygax
They've committed, but to tradition. Wizards, Clerics, and Druids traditionally have near infinite options. Everybody else gets the shaft. Because tradition. Also, because magic.
Not enough. They should have been able to put out a document with every class from all 4 editions stating how they were going to approach them six months ago. Didn't need hard mechanics, but where in the Class, Subclass or Build, Theme, or Specialty trees it was going to lie. It's been a year, we should be getting the modules to playtest by this point.
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top