Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
Explain the Warlord
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 8843859" data-attributes="member: 87792"><p>This post reads as if it could come from another timeline. Warlords were consistently a very popular class in my and multiple other groups - and it's one of those things you probably need to see in play.</p><p></p><p>Mechanically you say that warlords are situational - sure, but they aren't <em>that</em> situational. Needing to have two of you in melee with the same foe is easily managed, and the key thing to remember is that the warlord doesn't (just) hit you with their axe - they hit you with the party barbarian or the sneak attacking rogue. This meant that warlords were leaders who in practice did almost striker level damage if the striker worked with them (and that synergy lead to more cohesive parties). And the strikers never got jealous - after all high damage was what they signed up for and the warlord was just making it higher.</p><p></p><p>You talk about Commander's Strike being situational - and yes it was. It's also one of your three at will attacks (with the third being your basic attack). You didn't use it all the time but when you did it was <em>really</em> effective. And what it did was not like anything else that had been seen before. (There were two other later related at wills - Direct the Strike which could be done at range, and the risky Brash Assault). You also talk about the Warlord being MAD - it isn't; instead any given warlord normally specialises in two stats. </p><p></p><p>But fundamentally the warlord breaks ground in terms of what you can do in 4e you can't do in any other edition in two obvious ways:</p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">In terms of thematics an all martial party works (and works well). You don't need healing magic to get back on your feet. Which opens up a huge vistas of worldbuilding/usable worlds or low magic (possibly ritual magic only or even no magic) campaigns</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">In terms of characters the warlord lets you be a number of non-casting characters who really aren't able to pull their weight in other editions. <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The tactician (obviously) who spots and exploits weaknesses for everyone</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The grizzled sergeant/mentor who's no longer as fast or deadly as he was when younger but still has a lot to teach and can read a battlefield</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The Damsel in Distress who inspires others to protect them</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Multiple variations on the theme of "a joke character who causes utter chaos, distracting the enemy at the crucial moment"</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The seemingly reckless guy, first into the fray, disrupting the enemy to let your allies follow up while the enemy is disorganised</li> </ul></li> </ul></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 8843859, member: 87792"] This post reads as if it could come from another timeline. Warlords were consistently a very popular class in my and multiple other groups - and it's one of those things you probably need to see in play. Mechanically you say that warlords are situational - sure, but they aren't [I]that[/I] situational. Needing to have two of you in melee with the same foe is easily managed, and the key thing to remember is that the warlord doesn't (just) hit you with their axe - they hit you with the party barbarian or the sneak attacking rogue. This meant that warlords were leaders who in practice did almost striker level damage if the striker worked with them (and that synergy lead to more cohesive parties). And the strikers never got jealous - after all high damage was what they signed up for and the warlord was just making it higher. You talk about Commander's Strike being situational - and yes it was. It's also one of your three at will attacks (with the third being your basic attack). You didn't use it all the time but when you did it was [I]really[/I] effective. And what it did was not like anything else that had been seen before. (There were two other later related at wills - Direct the Strike which could be done at range, and the risky Brash Assault). You also talk about the Warlord being MAD - it isn't; instead any given warlord normally specialises in two stats. But fundamentally the warlord breaks ground in terms of what you can do in 4e you can't do in any other edition in two obvious ways: [LIST] [*]In terms of thematics an all martial party works (and works well). You don't need healing magic to get back on your feet. Which opens up a huge vistas of worldbuilding/usable worlds or low magic (possibly ritual magic only or even no magic) campaigns [*]In terms of characters the warlord lets you be a number of non-casting characters who really aren't able to pull their weight in other editions. [LIST] [*]The tactician (obviously) who spots and exploits weaknesses for everyone [*]The grizzled sergeant/mentor who's no longer as fast or deadly as he was when younger but still has a lot to teach and can read a battlefield [*]The Damsel in Distress who inspires others to protect them [*]Multiple variations on the theme of "a joke character who causes utter chaos, distracting the enemy at the crucial moment" [*]The seemingly reckless guy, first into the fray, disrupting the enemy to let your allies follow up while the enemy is disorganised [/LIST] [/LIST] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
Explain the Warlord
Top