D&D (2024) How should the Warlord be implemented in 1DnD?

[Frozen_Heart]

What I'm not understanding is why every single non magical class seems to get condensed down to 'fighter subclass', while people want to see every tiny variation of casters as their own thing.

I even see people saying that barbarian, monk, and ranger could all be fighter subclasses too.

5e doesn't have a single support focused martial. Meanwhile people support the existence of 'wizard but no spellbook' as its own class.

 

[Mistwell]

Warlords were beloved in 4E. They could not heal as well as clerics, but the healing they had was accepted just fine.

It's funny, did people claim during 4e that it was arbitrary and a distinction which was hard to fathom that Warlords couldn't heal as well as clerics even in a version of the game where more emphasis was on more equality and balance between the classes?

 

[Mistwell]

What I'm not understanding is why every single non magical class seems to get condensed down to 'fighter subclass',

I must have missed it. Who did that, and why didn't you quote them?

I even see people saying that barbarian, monk, and ranger could all be fighter subclasses too.

Again, who said that?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

No. I never was arguing it was a majority view from the beginning as my premise (and if you dare cut the words "from the beginning" in your reply I'm gonna blow a gasket) all I said was what my preferences were and the guy came after me so I explained it's not like I am alone in that preference so it can't be that wild a view for him that he'd find it so hard to literally fathom. Now you're sealioning me? Accept the basis of preference is purely my own experience and that was why I answered the way I did before he came after me claiming my view must be arbitrary because he can't fathom it. Accept you cannot force me to share your preferences on this topic. And let it go from there.

Bud, you’re the one that chose to post in a way that very clearly communicates the idea that you think that your view is strongly the majority.

It’s not like I came out of nowhere.

As for the rest of that rant, feel feee to direct you wrath at whoever actually invalidated your opinion or whatever.

 

[Incenjucar]

It's funny, did people claim during 4e that it was arbitrary and a distinction which was hard to fathom that Warlords couldn't heal as well as clerics even in a version of the game where more emphasis was on more equality and balance between the classes?

Each class had a baseline for their role and was then like 20% better at a specific part of their role. Clerics were the better healers, warlords were the better attack enablers, ardents were the better skill enablers, etc.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It's funny, did people claim during 4e that it was arbitrary and a distinction which was hard to fathom that Warlords couldn't heal as well as clerics even in a version of the game where more emphasis was on more equality and balance between the classes?

It was arbitrary, but most of us were fine with it because the warlord did other leader stuff better than the cleric. Each leader has a focus within the role. If the Warlord didn’t have enough healing to keep a party going as the only leader, it would be an issue.

 

[Undrave]

I am not speaking of battlemaster.
I am not speaking of the current fighter.

I think both classes should be joined. A fighter should be the leader of the group.

I think the ‘simple guy who swings a sword’ should be entirely hoisted upon the Barbarian. It’s perfect for mindless play with lots of big numbers. Big HP, big attack and big damage dice. And don’t you tell me a Rage is hard to track.

The Fighter could then be eaten by the Warlord who’d steal his name. The Warlord fits the original Fighter better as he was always destined to become a Lord and lead an army of mundane soldiers. Let that Fighter be good at small squad combat!

Just battle leader, but yes this does have some potential though it does indeed involve making the fighter class "more". It is also in keeping with the 2e Fighter descriptions which I rather like.

Yup! The Fighter could finally have an identity beyond 'has a weapon and armor'.

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.

Why not have a leadership specialist? ‘Leadership’ is just another ‘aspect’ to put into subclasses the same way Arcane Magic or Martial Might or Sneaky Stuff. Should the Paladin and Cleric be removed because you can have a Divine Soul Sorcerer? Or a Celestial Warlock? Should the Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster and Arcana Cleric mean we don’t have a Wizard? We can have a class that specializes in an aspect of class design (or its fusion) and still have other subclasses allowing you to dip into it.

 

[Incenjucar]

Warlords as their own class allows them to be physically weak but brilliant tacticians, which is a fun archetype to have around. We don't need to cram everything non-magical into the fewest possible classes. There are only 2 truly non-magical classes as-is.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I must have missed it. Who did that, and why didn't you quote them?


Again, who said that?

i'll back up that those opinions exist, they may or may not have been made in this thread specifically but i've definitly seen them be made here on enworld with full sincerity multiple times over, and to be fair on the caster side of things there's currently the 'the sorcerers shouldn't exist' thread right now where the same attitude is being made that sorcerer (and warlock) only really need to exist as wizard subclasses.

 

[OldSchoolGamerGirl]

most of us also agree healing a lot of hitpoints in 6 seconds or less is generally magical in nature, but are comfortable healing a smaller amount in that same time (like second wind) or healing a larger amount over a longer period of time (like hit dice).

wait healing 1d10+ level is less then 1d8+ caster stat mod?!?!?!

cure wounds heals 1d8+3 and at 3rd level second wind heals 1d10+3 how is that smaller?

heck useing a 3rd level slot at 5th level heals 3d4+4 from healing word and second wind at level 5 heals 1d10+5... thats about the same.