D&D 5E Different types of Warlords

[MoonSong]

I think we should try to separate the 4e warlord from what we want of the 5e warlord. I'm okay that in 4e, the warlord was a healer, but what if, maybe, in 5e he was to do something else? Some people also argue that having a warLORD at level 1 makes no sense, like having a lvl 1 mage called an archmage. So I think the class should have a name that reflect this power progression (lets say Marshal, with the capstone being called Warlord), and have archetypes based on being better prepared for battle.

I can see the last rogue ua's scout as being an archetype for the stealthy ''marshall'' (help you party land an ambush).
I can see an archetype of battle field healer, loosely inspired by the master healer from AIME.
I can see an archetype with shouts that works as auras with different effects.

I think it should heal, and be named a warlord. The coremost reason of the warlord for existing -from a certain perspective- is to be a nonmagical cleric replacement. It must not use magic, it must replace a cleric and it should be named warlord. If it doesn't do any of these it is a waste of time as it wouldn't be any better than the PDK/BM/MM.


Maybe they should design the class and then put it with an Aaracockra-like disclaimer. But it oughta heal, and it oughta be non-magical and it oughta be called warlord.

 

[Jester David]

I think it should heal, and be named a warlord. The coremost reason of the warlord for existing -from a certain perspective- is to be a nonmagical cleric replacement. It must not use magic, it must replace a cleric and it should be named warlord. If it doesn't do any of these it is a waste of time as it wouldn't be any better than the PDK/BM/MM.


Maybe they should design the class and then put it with an Aaracockra-like disclaimer. But it oughta heal, and it oughta be non-magical and it oughta be called warlord.

But not all clerics heal. Only one of the eight published clerics always has cure spells prepared.

In combat healing is also only part of the clerical role. And a minor one in 5e. There's also lesser and greater restoration. If the warlord is to replace clerics, doesn't it also need to cure disease, neutralize poison, turn stone to flesh, restore ability scores, etc.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I think it should heal, and be named a warlord. The coremost reason of the warlord for existing -from a certain perspective- is to be a nonmagical cleric replacement. It must not use magic, it must replace a cleric and it should be named warlord. If it doesn't do any of these it is a waste of time as it wouldn't be any better than the PDK/BM/MM.


Maybe they should design the class and then put it with an Aaracockra-like disclaimer. But it oughta heal, and it oughta be non-magical and it oughta be called warlord.

I think you're 100% wrong about the name, and 100% right that it has to be able to heal.

As an option. I don't need my Captain to heal, and would rather the healz live in optional parts of the class, not in features every warlord gets.

 

[bedir than]

There's two options. Either they have a rules exception that allows unconscious creatures to hear them. Or they could be able to restore unconscious creatures through other methods, likely a a range of 5 feet.

If the Warlord is supposed to be non-magical, how is it healing someone at range? Morale boost cannot be claimed, because as previously discussed the creature is unconscious.

Let's face it, a majority of the presentation of the Warlord is as a magic user that calls spells something else.

 

[i_dont_meta]

Like I've posted before, the Warlord is already in the PHB--Second Paragraph of the Bard description. Have to imagine that a game with 40+ yrs of history is probably not going to worry themselves with presenting an "accurate" class that has only been canon for for such a short time. All of the mechanics are there--why are we still ruminating on this??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Like I've posted before, the Warlord is already in the PHB--Second Paragraph of the Bard description. Have to imagine that a game with 40+ yrs of history is probably not going to worry themselves with presenting an "accurate" class that has only been canon for for such a short time. All of the mechanics are there--why are we still ruminating on this??

Because in 4th ed, the class used a different power source to the one the 5e bard uses.
Thus 5e needs a Leader role class with a Martial power source.

Apparently.

 

[Alexemplar]

If the Warlord is supposed to be non-magical, how is it healing someone at range? Morale boost cannot be claimed, because as previously discussed the creature is unconscious.

Let's face it, a majority of the presentation of the Warlord is as a magic user that calls spells something else.

"This ability cant restore hp to someone at 0 hp".

Done.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

"This ability cant restore hp to someone at 0 hp".

Done.

Probably better to stick with: "Warlord abilities require the warlord to be able to see the target, and the target to be able to hear the warlord."
Thus a deafened or unconscious target (or one in the area of a silence spell cannot be affected.)

 

[Imaro]

Because in 4th ed, the class used a different power source to the one the 5e bard uses.
Thus 5e needs a Leader role class with a Martial power source.

Apparently.

Where are the "power sources" listed in 5e?

 

[Alexemplar]

Theyre in the class descrptions. Arcane, divine, ki, and soon to be psionics, with a lack of "source" indicative that a given class/feature is not magical in nature.