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

[Frozen_Heart]

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


Again, who said that?

They're comments I've usually seen scattered about on reddit over the last 10 years or so with some regularity. Not something I saw in the last 5 mins on this thread.

 

[OldSchoolGamerGirl]

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?

no because they were better at buffing and handing out extra attack/actions... they both where leaders but warlords where better at offensive force multiplication and clerics were better at healing... and both could do the other decent.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

And this is why niche protection needs deletion.

I like soft niches, but really dislike it when they're enforced.

Like if a player wants to be a sneaky celestial themed warrior firing divine arrows, they're pretty much just not allowed at this point. There is no celestial ranger subclass, but paladin can't use its smites at range. So my DM is SOL when it comes to making the character he's always wanted to play, just because it takes aspects of two classes and switches them to be opposites.

 

[Pauln6]

?Link?

Dungeon Masters Guild

www.dmsguild.com

Maneuvers and Commander.

 

[Mistwell]

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.

Yes I know, I was a 4e fan. That's not the question I asked though.

 

[Mistwell]

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.

Why was it arbitrary, given Clerics were known for healing?

 

[Mistwell]

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

No? Who said that?

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

It's not? Who said cure wounds?

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.

Yes. And? I mean I said the two spells I was talking about earlier. It's not those.

 

[Mistwell]

no because they were better at buffing and handing out extra attack/actions... they both where leaders but warlords where better at offensive force multiplication and clerics were better at healing... and both could do the other decent.

Right so why is it so wrong to say they should be able to do a small amount of healing fast, or a large amount slow, but not a large amount fast unless it's magical or temporary hit points?

For example if people want the Warlord to use a bonus action to heal 2d6 hit points each round for 10 rounds in a row for a total of 20d6 in a single minute (Aura of Vitality) it should either be a magic ability of theirs (thus not able to work in an anti-magic field) or should grant temporary hit points instead. That's my position. I don't see what's so controversial about that. I don't think it's meaningfully different than how 4e handled the Warlord either - as that sort of top end healing was reserved for clerics in 4e too.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

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.

Leadership specialists are all well and good. I would play one! But the way classes are designed, most class and subclass abilities are "unique" to those specific classes and subclasses. If a "Warlord" class got all those abilities crammed into it, there would be little left for Leadership options for other classes.

No class should get exclusive access to all of those abilities. Want a "princess" build that enables their peers to attack again as their reactions? Build a Feat or a Subclass around that functionality, and make other feats or subclasses that fulfill other Leadership themes, and spread them out.

Heck, if I were a designer, I would try my hand at creating several class-agnostic Leadership-themed subclasses that any class could take. That sounds better to me than a Warlord, or a Fighter-only subclass.

 

[Incenjucar]

All the magical subclasses that martial classes get rather defy the idea of niche protection to that degree.

Warlord as the best class for a heavy leadership focus doesn't create any kind of barrier to creating a cult leader warlock subclass or a monastery master monk subclass.