D&D 5E How many fans want a 5E Warlord?

[Flexor the Mighty!]

What is a lazylord? Other than myself that is...

 

[mellored]

Oo. So close...What the "don't care and/or con-Warlord" folks are saying and the "pro-warlord" folks can't answer is...."Why?"

If anyone can be devote, why do clerics need a mechanic to show their devotion?
If anyone can backstab, why do rogues need a mechanic to show their sneakiness?
If anyone can read a book, why do wizards need mechanic to cast spells?
If anyone can (RP here), why do (class) need a mechanic?


And the answer to all of those is that it's fun. It's fun to swing a weapon/shout charge/pray to gods/recite poet, and actually get a mechanical benefit from it.

Thank you. Just had to get that out. I feel much better now.

No promises i won't make the same mistake.

 

[mellored]

What is a lazylord? Other than myself that is...

A character that does not directly attack the enemy, only buffs and enables allies.


Basically, the 4e warlord had the battle master's commander's strike at-will, and bardic inspiration (+ cutting words). So you build a character who only uses those things and dumps Str. Though it wasn't specifically the warlord. Shaman, artificer, bard and ardent has similar abilities, so you usually a mix.

Similar to a pacifist cleric who only takes bless/healing/sanctuary spells.
Or an 8 int wizard who only takes non-DC spells like magic missile, alarm, fog cloud, wall of stone, and haste.

It was fun, but you had to struggle to make it effective, since those powers where rare and usually worth less then hitting someone yourself.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Imaro]

Battles, yes, in which he is a leader of large bodies of men in war. Nor do we have to exclude any personal prowess from consideration, any D&D character of any level at all will be relatively a great warrior, and the warlord class is still a 'martial' character who can fight on his own. He's just Arthur, leader of men, not Launcelot, invincible warrior.

Emphasis mine... and yet the major reason cited for the Warlord not being a subclass of fighter is that the fighter possess too much combat prowess... so which is it? Must we exclude a certain level of prowess in one on one combat from the archetype or not?

Again though, a very significant aspect of the character is leadership and inspiration, not brute force. He's an accomplished warrior, like what you'd expect any level 20 character to be considered. There's far less emphasis on his martial prowess than there is for Corum or Elric in his stories though.

Wait so is a warlord a one on one combatant capable of standing with trained swordsmen and warriors... or is he supposed to be tactically adept but lesser in personal combat. THis is the problem with the archetype it's rarely if ever separate from the warrior.

True, he's a hard character to categorize because he doesn't stick to a single paradigm in all of REH's stories. Barbarian/Fighter doesn't EXACTLY work for him either.

I'd say it's alot closer to the general public's idea of Conan than warlord....

He drove it off temporarily after it had already wounded Frodo and then regrouped with its fellows to track them and attack again. He didn't actually fight and defeat it. In fact I'd almost say his main accomplishment was bolstering his allies morale and disheartening his opponent.

He threw a torch into it and lit it on fire (at least in the movies). That's not inspiring hobits and disheartening a Nazgul... that's fighting. Are we really at the point where what happened in this scene is considered "warlording"... seriously?

I think you need to play a 4e warlord and see it. I thought the same thing in 2008, and then I played, and my opinion was utterly changed. No other class introduced since the druid IMHO has such a strong case for it in actual play.

Nope, I'm good I like sword and sorcery alot more than LotR... the warlord would stick out like a sore thumb in most of those stories since the protagonists are assumed to be broadly capable and usually experts in their areas of expertise.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Throw in those teamwork feats in 3rd that nobody took and make them a class feature that your other party members don't have to take and I think you nailed it.

Sounds good.
I mean, the saga noble is way more than a leader, and can easily be built as a purely support guy, or a face, or a dozen other things. The conceptual space is big, which us why I support a name change and using a different game that got it right as the inspiration.

 

[Shades of Eternity]

Sounds good.
I mean, the saga noble is way more than a leader, and can easily be built as a purely support guy, or a face, or a dozen other things. The conceptual space is big, which us why I support a name change and using a different game that got it right as the inspiration.

It's also why I love the conceptual model of using talents trees within a class (something star wars saga excelled in).

Easier to define a character within a loose category, and more permission to "customize" as desired.

 

[mellored]

Sounds like you have a good idea!

So why not-
1. Get your desired abilities within the core rules via multiclassing and feats; or
2. Design your desired class (homebrew) and play it in your campaign? See how it works! Playtest it. If it's a good concept, distribute it. Get grass roots support. Maybe something similar will be in a supplement.

It was fun.

1: I can make it work for lower levels, but it can't keep up at higher ones.
2: I did, at least the basic concept. http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?469013-Class-Tactician-(warlord-replacement). It could use more details.

2b: And this thread is part of getting support. Or at least figuring out what parts people object to.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

A character that does not directly attack the enemy, only buffs and enables allies.


Basically, the 4e warlord had the battle master's commander's strike at-will, and bardic inspiration (+ cutting words). So you build a character who only uses those things and dumps Str. Though it wasn't specifically the warlord. Shaman, artificer, bard and ardent has similar abilities, so you usually a mix.

I can't imagine how that character would be fun to play but different strokes and all. One thing I hate is games where your "role" is baked in but it seems that you had to choose to be a lazylord. I did not like 4e for a lot of reason but that would be an extreme example I take it.

Thanks!