• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! 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 (2024) How should the Warlord be implemented in 1DnD?

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
The 5 minute workday 3pp book had quite a few Warlord style suggested manoeuvres, versions of some having now been brought into core, but they also did their own version of the Warlord on top of that with a formal sub list of Warlord manoeuvres.
?Link?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

What are you talking about?..... If you said you wanted to play a wizard and someone said here is a Eldritch knight we removed the Wizard class ... you can just use a staff and make it a dex build.... that ought to be satisfying right?
Warlord was the first 4E class I played. I did have a lot of fun. However after all is said and done, what matters to me in this case, ever since the 4E debates, is the narrative role in the world. A "military leader" isn't limited to one class called a "Warlord" (no decent person should ever call themselves a "Warlord"), nor is it just for Fighters. A Ranger or Barbarian or Paladin should be able to take military leadership ability options, as much as a Fighter could. Narratively, all those "Warlord" abilities are better suited as options that should be spread across a number of "Leadership" feats, maneuvers, and subclasses, rather than living with one class.

Once universal feats and maneuvers are created, I would rather have each class get a "Leadership" subclass which would get its share of remaining leadership abilities that make sense for that class. Examples of such subclasses include the existing Banneret Fighter, the Mastermind Rogue, and for newer reimagined stuff, perhaps the Bravura Bard, the Thaneborn Barbarian, the Warden Ranger, and heck, maybe even magic-boosting leaders on the caster side of things.

But a class called the Warlord that gets all that stuff shoehorned into it and other classes don't get those options? Nah.
 


Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
But a class called the Warlord that gets all that stuff shoehorned into it and other classes don't get those options? Nah.
Apparently a Wizard existing means you cannot have an Eldritch Knight, that is exactly your claim. That a specialist prevents the subclasses which dip into its realm what a load of poppycock.

Further In a game with bloody open ended multi-classing like 5e and you worry about this? (two of the best feats in 4e where Warlord mc feats by the way and Warlord was actually one of the best/easiest for Hybriding too because of its attribute flexibility) cough cough cough....

Tell me again how no class deserves anything unique to themselves because being a specialist is impossible or makes other things impossible, sigh.

OR even more to my actual point. This is effectively what a battlemaster is in comparison to a warlord. (applied to wizards)
->Wizards do not need spells higher than what they have at level 3. ... let them upcast those. "Let them eat cake." I am sure that would go over so well
 
Last edited:




Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
yeah weak and innadequate intrinsically overshadowed by almost every class in the game because they use spell slots.
I didn't say anything like that?

All I said the mundane portion of Warlord healing should 1) give large healing slowly, or 2) give lower amounts of healing quickly. I also said IF the Warlord is going to give large amounts of healing quickly, it should be magical in nature.

That's it.
 


cbwjm

Seb-wejem
I agree that warlord-type healing shouldn't be doing the same amount of healing as something like the heal spell, stuff like that should be left to healing magic. I think what they should do is enable hit die expenditure with a bonus, how big a bonus would depend on the ability or maybe it could be level based.
 

Remove ads

Top