D&D 5E D&D podcast!

[Jester David]

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.

Except mechanics as the basis for a class is system dedepent and is subject to change with the edition, which makes the class irrelevant. If sorcerers are only "wizards who cast spontaneously" the do you nee a sorcerer in a game like 5e that will likely have an option to replace a wizard's Vancian spellcasting with spell points? In 4e both classes were pretty much spontaneous casters and the difference became strikers versus controllers, which is equally irrelevant in 5e.

And fighters fight this is true, but how is variable. They fight is dependent on speciality, which makes them fight with two-weapons or a polearm or a two-handed weapon.
Again, specialities are indepanant of class. Is a warrior with the two-handed weapon speciality different from a fighter? What about a Leader or Tactician speciality; is a fighter with the Tactitian speciality that different than a warlord?

 

[Libramarian]

I think the Warlord is just as thematically distinct as the Paladin, Ranger, and Barbarian. I don't consider Sun Tzu or Julius Caesar to be primarily Fighters. To me, Fighters should be amazing athletes who've reached the height of prowess at physical combat, using tools, armor, equipment, training, and their physical skills to their advantage. So, Beowulf? Fighter. Napoleon? Warlord.

Can you name some Warlords from fantasy fiction, rather than real world military leaders?

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Can you name some Warlords from fantasy fiction, rather than real world military leaders?

Tanis and Laurana from Dragonlance, especially Laurana. Agammemnon(Warlord) vs. Achilles(Fighter). Boromir from LotR, and innovatively I'd include Warlord(the lazy kind) as the least inappropriate class to pin on Frodo. From Game of Thrones, Tyrion and Daenerys.

 

[Obryn]

Can you name some Warlords from fantasy fiction, rather than real world military leaders?

I don't necessarily see how relevant your question is. Is it wrong for a player to sit down at a table and say, "I want to make a Sun Tzu sort of character"?

-O

 

[Jester David]

Let's break down the potential warlord design logically.


There are three realistic options: the warlord becomes a fighter, the warlord is its own class without healing, and the warlord is its own class with healing.
Regardless, the fighter is the good baseline for the warlord. They have to be equal and balanced.


If the warlord becomes the fighter, its combat style is replaces with warlord-type options, possibly paired with either a leader/tactician or healer speciality.


If the warlord is its own class it will likely have the same armour and weapon proficiencies as the fighter, and potentially the same stat boosts. Plus the same Martial Damage Dice/ weapon bonus. They might have slightly fewer hitpoints - comparable to the cleric - but this might be balanced with an extra skill.
But like the fighter it would have two meanuvers, the same as the fighter. It couldn't have more because then it's better.
So, really, the difference between a fighter and the warlord becomes 2hp, maybe a bonus skill, and swapping out Parry.


Healing would have to be a daily resource like a cleric's spellcasting. Likely once a day at first level and additional uses every could levels. Healing likely replaces Parry so the warlord only has one maneuver. That means they have two options each round: basic attack or their one maneuver. Healing is actually unsatisfying as a character choice, greatly limiting the character's actions,


In terms of warlord builds there's only a few good options.
The Charisma-based inspirational options overlap too much with the bard. The bard should be the most inspiring of classes, it's that class' niche. You wouldn't make a class that was as sneaky as the rogue. That style of warlord is either a melee bard or a muticlass bard/fighter.
We have the tactical warlord then. I think you could have a couple options based on that, one based on the party's actions and one reacting & anticipating the enemy's actions. There might be room for a couple other builds, but those are the big two.

 

[Libramarian]

Tanis and Laurana from Dragonlance, especially Laurana. Agammemnon(Warlord) vs. Achilles(Fighter). Boromir from LotR, and innovatively I'd include Warlord(the lazy kind) as the least inappropriate class to pin on Frodo. From Game of Thrones, Tyrion and Daenerys.

These are pretty abstract associations...the concept I am getting from reading over the Warlord powers is not just any sort of leader or inspirational figure, it's a particular sort of lead-from-the-front type who inspires their allies with magical/mythological shouts and displays of fighting prowess. There's a lot of "inspire your ally to attack again by hitting this guy really hard" and musical/shouty stuff like "ferocious war cry", "ringing blows" and "the rhythm of your enemies falling is music to your ears". I'm telling you this is a Skald.

I don't necessarily see how relevant your question is. Is it wrong for a player to sit down at a table and say, "I want to make a Sun Tzu sort of character"?

-O

I would say that would be inappropriate for D&D, yes.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

This podcast does not bode well for my hopes for 5e. It's been blow after blow after blow to my interest levels; at this point I am seriously questioning why I even care.

Warlord needs to be its own thing. Until I experienced them in 4e, it was the class that I didn't know I was missing all these years. I have a character from AD&D that I'm very fond of, despite the fact that she never really "worked" mechanically all that well... until the Warlord. Perfect fit.

Plus, it enables a lot of "what class is this?" concepts to work or be viable. I particularly love it for its application in making adventuring Princesses. Something a Fighter-based version would not be terribly good at producing. Without this, a lot of fun characters in my games simply won't work in Next. No sale.

 

[Obryn]

I would say that would be inappropriate for D&D, yes.

... because...?

-O

 

[mlund]

What does the Fighter do that makes anyone else around him better? Outside of the Protect maneuver, nothing.

That's why he's no substitute for a Warlord. He's not a Tactician, a Marshall, or anything like them. He's an elegant brute, but a brute none the less. I know some players would like to keep him that way too, but I see room for rolling the Warlord into the Fighter if Maneuvers get expanded upon a bit. There needs to be a mechanical structure for the "non-magical guy who wins fights with Squad-level Tactics and Leadership," even setting aside non-Magical Healing (Temp HP and damage-prevention Reactions would carry that weight anyway).

Right now the Fighter never offers that. The Fighter also has 3 dump-stats (all the mental ones) in all his builds and that will never sit well with the concept of the Warlord - or any sort of Leader, really.

Of course, I also see the same logic suggesting you could role the Barbarian (ahem "Berserker") and Monk (ahem "Martial Artist") into the Fighter too. Their stories are messy niches that just ignore the distinction between a Class and a Background. They only justify being unique classes on the basis of having a unique mechanical resource - rages or ki.

So I see 3 good options on the table:

1. Expand the list of Fighter Maneuvers to include some that utilize Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma to produce positive effects for/with allies.

2. Add a "Commander" specialty that includes robust feats that are best used by non-caster types.

3. Include the "Warlord" class with Combat Expertise and his own unique resource like the Barbarian and Monk have related to being a brilliant figure on the battlefield.

- Marty Lund

 

[Ratskinner]

... because...?

-O

...err...because Sun Tzu was a military philosopher who may actually be a composite of several writers (presumably experienced officers)? He wrote about warfare on a scale and scope far larger than a typical D&D skirmish fight. Now that might be an appropriate image for a prestige class (or whatever they end up being) call it "The Great General", but there's nothing in Sun Tzu about "what to shout to get your friend fighting again" or "how to hit a target so that you encourage your buddy to strike it as well".

That's not to say that there are not characters following the Warlord trope. However, the ones that spring most readily to my mind aren't from the fantasy genre.* I don't claim to be the most well-versed fantasy aficionado, but I'm drawing mostly blanks. I can think of a few (mostly Black Company) characters who occasionally appear to do some "Warlordy" things, but they are always incidental and seem overshadowed by their personal kick-buttitude.

If the 4e Warlord does represent some kind of fantasy hero trope (outside of D&D) that is clearly distinct from the fighter or paladin, I'd certainly be interested in hearing more examples of it.

*Okay, its Captain America and...well its Captain America, and even then a case could be made for Paladin.