D&D 5E What is a Warlord [No, really, I don't know.]
- Thread starter Tinker-TDC
- Start date
Aldarc
Legend
The warlord is essentially a spell-less warrior support class that focuses predominately on tactical support, team optimization, and buffing allies. I intentionally say 'spell-less' as opposed to 'non-magical,' because the latter is a point of high contention, with some wanting the warlord to be explicitly 'non-magical,' while others are opposed to that notion, preferring that their abilities be at least tinged 'magical.' As to why that cannot be represented by existing classes? The fighter does not provide enough 'support capabilities' and too strong as a fighter, while the bard and cleric are spellcasters with flavor (mostly) incongruent with the warlord.
strider13x
First Post
Wow, you are opening a can of worms by asking about the Warlord! The biggest problem with the class was folks with a limited view of Hit Points and what the term ' to hit ' actually represent in D&D. Some folks feel ' to hit ' and HP loss must represent actual physical contact ( it says the word hit after all). The Warlord class had abilities that 'healed' HP, which when you keep a narrow view of HP simply didn't make 'sense' (because a game of magical elves and beholder and such has to make sense). When you accept ' to hit ' means 'success' (or in simpler parlance ' to hit a target number ') and HP represents how you avoided or survived the successful attack, then the Warlord works. 5e (and even 4e) should have eliminated antiquated terminology such as ' to hit ' for success and failure. Then HP makes sense (read the description of HP, it even says they represent luck and divine providence which means they do not have to always represent physicality). So really the Warlord debate is about what HP means to you.
Would a Warlord class work in 5e? Yes, because they already exist (i.e. Battlemaster Fighter and Valor Bard). Some would say Valor Bard uses magic, but the 'spells' mechanic could be interpreted as uses per day rather than magic (this goes for Ranger spells too). Instead of saying they are magic call them martial exploits and you get the same in game results (avoid the obvious ball of flame spells and it can work).
On a final note, since we are picking at scabs here... DAMAGE ON A MISS RULZ!!!
Would a Warlord class work in 5e? Yes, because they already exist (i.e. Battlemaster Fighter and Valor Bard). Some would say Valor Bard uses magic, but the 'spells' mechanic could be interpreted as uses per day rather than magic (this goes for Ranger spells too). Instead of saying they are magic call them martial exploits and you get the same in game results (avoid the obvious ball of flame spells and it can work).
On a final note, since we are picking at scabs here... DAMAGE ON A MISS RULZ!!!
GMforPowergamers
Legend
A warlord is a complex class that is as good as a cleric in both combat and almost as good at buffing and healing as the cleric that can also hand out attacks in place of there's or maneuver allies. Some of there iconic abilities were similar to commander strirke
Wik
First Post
To answer the questions, though:
1. The main purpose of the warlord was to be a "martial leader". In 4e, there were numerous "power sources", such as "arcane", "Divine", and "Martial". Martial power type meant the character was of this world, and that powers were not really supernatural in origin - they were powered by sheer chutzpah. (Arcane was magic, divine was from the gods, psionic was psychic, primal was druidic,etc). A "leader" was one of four character roles (Leader, Striker, Defender, and Controller) that dictated what a class was good at - a leader was a role that made allies better at doing stuff, and kept allies in the fight by healing lost hp.
2. The martial leader warlord had a bunch of tactical abilities that moved allies around the battlefield, healed allies, granted buffs, and a bunch of other things.
3. The main cause of the conflict is that all of the warlord's abilities came from "the real world" - there was no magic involved. This meant that the warlord could heal allies with a word, and it was completely non-magical. So, even for people that acknowledged that hit points are abstract and don't represent purely physical damage (they also represent luck, fatigue, skill at arms, and the like), the warlord could be problematic in play.
Think of it this way. If the GM says "you got hit by a spear, but your armour stopped it from piercing your skin. Your arm is still a bit numb, though - you take five points of damage", the warlord could "heal" it by giving advice "Your arm is numb? Use your elbow to brace it!" - and the inspiration and tactical combination "healed" the "damage". This is what was intended with the class - roughly speaking, of course.
But it falls apart when you're knocked unconscious. "Hey! You're unconscious! Wake up, dammit!" and bang, joe bloe half-orc is awake!
In play, this has an odd effect of the GM not really describing what damage is until AFTER someone heals it. Which can be problematic for many groups.
Personally, I didn't have that problem. I liked the warlord in 4e. Had one in our group for a long time, and the few times I played the game I ran a Bravura Warlord that was pretty fun. But yeah, that's where the conflict is coming from.
4. Another issue is that the warlord was the only class in the original 4e player's handbook that didn't come from an earlier edition - it was new to 4e. And a lot of people (myself included) kind of hate how 4e worked, and a lot of the things that happened when it rolled out. So, there's a good chunk of hate directed at the warlord because of this.
1. The main purpose of the warlord was to be a "martial leader". In 4e, there were numerous "power sources", such as "arcane", "Divine", and "Martial". Martial power type meant the character was of this world, and that powers were not really supernatural in origin - they were powered by sheer chutzpah. (Arcane was magic, divine was from the gods, psionic was psychic, primal was druidic,etc). A "leader" was one of four character roles (Leader, Striker, Defender, and Controller) that dictated what a class was good at - a leader was a role that made allies better at doing stuff, and kept allies in the fight by healing lost hp.
2. The martial leader warlord had a bunch of tactical abilities that moved allies around the battlefield, healed allies, granted buffs, and a bunch of other things.
3. The main cause of the conflict is that all of the warlord's abilities came from "the real world" - there was no magic involved. This meant that the warlord could heal allies with a word, and it was completely non-magical. So, even for people that acknowledged that hit points are abstract and don't represent purely physical damage (they also represent luck, fatigue, skill at arms, and the like), the warlord could be problematic in play.
Think of it this way. If the GM says "you got hit by a spear, but your armour stopped it from piercing your skin. Your arm is still a bit numb, though - you take five points of damage", the warlord could "heal" it by giving advice "Your arm is numb? Use your elbow to brace it!" - and the inspiration and tactical combination "healed" the "damage". This is what was intended with the class - roughly speaking, of course.
But it falls apart when you're knocked unconscious. "Hey! You're unconscious! Wake up, dammit!" and bang, joe bloe half-orc is awake!
In play, this has an odd effect of the GM not really describing what damage is until AFTER someone heals it. Which can be problematic for many groups.
Personally, I didn't have that problem. I liked the warlord in 4e. Had one in our group for a long time, and the few times I played the game I ran a Bravura Warlord that was pretty fun. But yeah, that's where the conflict is coming from.
4. Another issue is that the warlord was the only class in the original 4e player's handbook that didn't come from an earlier edition - it was new to 4e. And a lot of people (myself included) kind of hate how 4e worked, and a lot of the things that happened when it rolled out. So, there's a good chunk of hate directed at the warlord because of this.
CapnZapp
Legend
No, why would you say that.
I can easily imagine a class with basic fighter prowess, basic cleric-matching healing (though non-magical; more like ki or rage than spells) and basic bard-like inspire others, that could easily be a viable alternative to anyone of those three classes.
I can't say I have read the approximately 1,067,492 posts on warlords, but I don't see why there can't be a 4E mod to 5E where things like low-level misty steps and non-magical "real" healing is commonplace.
CapnZapp
Legend
Regardless of my own opinion of 4E I would say 5E is a poor fit for 4E-era gameplay.
Significant healing is only a small part of what makes a game "4E like", perhaps the easiest part to add.
Not saying you're wrong, but needing to clarify that saying "5E picks from all previous editions" would be misleading at best. 5E is clearly much more of a marriage between the pre-d20-editions and 3E than something heavily involving 4E.
That is why I am magnitudes more curious abut the upcoming 4E conversion document than, say, any AD&D to 5E or Pathfinder to 5E guide will ever be.
JediGamemaster
First Post
The warlord was one of the biggest mistakes in D&D history. When they made 4e they took a look at the way kids where playing MMOs and tried to duplicate it. They designed a grid of class styles Tank DPR Leader controller across the top and martial arcane divine druidic and mental down the side and then had to fill out the grid so you had to have at least 1 martial tank 1 acrane tank 1 divine tank, 1 druid tank ect... when they got to control and lead for martial though there was no fair way to give them the same magic powers as the others... instead of say "well no need to fill the grid" they renamed a bunuch of other spells and said "But these aren't spells"
as for why I don't want to make it fit in 5e, that's simple, I find it silly. most if not all of the examples are from non fantasy sources (you will hear comic books a lot) it is trying to play a cleric/wizard hybrid and still claim "But it works in antimagic fields and can't be dispelled because it's not magic..."
as for why I don't want to make it fit in 5e, that's simple, I find it silly. most if not all of the examples are from non fantasy sources (you will hear comic books a lot) it is trying to play a cleric/wizard hybrid and still claim "But it works in antimagic fields and can't be dispelled because it's not magic..."
Similar Threads
