Level Up (A5E) What would you call a 'Warlord' class? (+)

[TheSword]

The Lord of War.

.
Nicolas Cage has deserved a Dnd class for a long time now.

Great film

 

[Hriston]

Stalwart
Worthy
Torchbearer

 

[Zardnaar]

Having missed the whole 4e warlord debate. Can someone summarize the difference between the warlord and the battlemaster now the new maneuvers for allies attacks and healing etc are in Tasha’s.

This isn’t a loaded question. I don’t have a dog in this fight. it’s a genuine ask for a quick summary. Obvs this would be superseded by changes Level Up makes.

Probably martial healing and generic blowback on 4E in general AEDU class design in particular.

Throw in not the best name and some players taking leader to literally (as in boss).

 

[Zardnaar]

The word dates to 1856. Definition of WARLORD

It was introduced to English as a translation of the German title kriegsherr or the Chinese title junfa.

warlord | Origin and meaning of warlord by Online Etymology Dictionary

WotC didn't invent the word, any more than they invented "Fighter" or "Rogue" or "Wizard". It's a 164 year old word for a military commander.

Doesn't matter to much what the dictionary definition is. It has negative connotations with non state actors committing crimes against humanity.

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

In addition to being a little gender specific (Warlord)

Yeah, back when, our group called the class Warsovereign; if just to avoid the "Warlady" question.

 

[Lord Twig]

I played very little 4th edition, but I was there for the "great warlord debate" soon after the release of 5e. My understanding of it is this...

When making 4th edition they assigned power sources and roles to all of the character classes. Power sources were Arcane, Divine, Martial and Primal. Then the roles where Controller, Defender, Leader and Striker. They were able to fill most boxes with an existing class, but if one was empty they felt compelled to fill it. Thus the Warlord was born! (and a few others, like Swordmage and Warden).

The Warlord filled the Martial Leader role. The leader role (which I think was poorly named) is basically a support class that buffs or enhances the other characters in the party and makes them more effective. So the Bard was the Arcane Leader and the Cleric was the Divine Leader, for example. The Warlord could shout out commands and, as long as his fellow party members could hear him, were able to do things like take extra attacks or extra movement or recover hit points and things like that.

The problem with the Battle Master is that he is a Fighter with a few Warlord like abilities tacked on that can only be used occasionally. A Warlord in 4th edition could be designed that way, but it could also be designed so that it was 100% support all the time and did next to nothing on its own. This came to be know as the "Lazylord" or "Princess" build and there are people out there that absolutely love it.

So hopefully that is an unbiased and not too controversial description of the Warlord and the difference from the Battle Master. I'm sure others can point out any omissions or inaccuracies.

 

[ART!]

I'm not keen on a class name that says "I'm the leader!", so I went with "Tactician", even though I'm not totally in love with that either.

 

[aco175]

My first thought was marshal. I was not wanting warlord since it would only open debate on how it needs to compare to the old one. Marshal brings the thought of leading, or marshaling, your forces to battle.

 

[MarkB]

Synergist.

They're not about leading the group, they're not even necessarily about dictating tactics. They're about bringing out those combinations that make the team more than the sum of its parts.

 

[TheSword]

I played very little 4th edition, but I was there for the "great warlord debate" soon after the release of 5e. My understanding of it is this...

When making 4th edition they assigned power sources and roles to all of the character classes. Power sources were Arcane, Divine, Martial and Primal. Then the roles where Controller, Defender, Leader and Striker. They were able to fill most boxes with an existing class, but if one was empty they felt compelled to fill it. Thus the Warlord was born! (and a few others, like Swordmage and Warden).

The Warlord filled the Martial Leader role. The leader role (which I think was poorly named) is basically a support class that buffs or enhances the other characters in the party and makes them more effective. So the Bard was the Arcane Leader and the Cleric was the Divine Leader, for example. The Warlord could shout out commands and, as long as his fellow party members could hear him, were able to do things like take extra attacks or extra movement or recover hit points and things like that.

The problem with the Battle Master is that he is a Fighter with a few Warlord like abilities tacked on that can only be used occasionally. A Warlord in 4th edition could also be designed that way, but it could also be designed so that it was 100% support all the time and did next to nothing on its own. This came to be know as the "Lazylord" or "Princess" build and there are people out there that absolutely love it.

So hopefully that is an unbiased and not too controversial description of the Warlord and the difference from the Battle Master. I'm sure others can point out any omissions or inaccuracies.

Cheers for that. So is it fair to say, it’s consistency and quantity of abilities that are the main difference between the two.