Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="rounser" data-source="post: 4328207" data-attributes="member: 1106">What isn't?1) They don't fit an adventuring party, they should be commanding an army.  An adventuring party is a group of heroes who cooperate, not a military hierarchy with orders being thrown around.  This is the first class that actually attacks the nature of the adventuring party, and implies that everyone's running Black Company.  Very, very shortsighted.  All of a sudden, if someone takes "warlord", your formerly independent Conan-type becomes a shoe-licking subservient looking up to the inspiration and guiding tactical light of his precious master and hierarchical leader, because that's what the sodding rules imply.2) The name is completely wrong.  A warlord has land and troops, has current currency of commiting atrocities, and the status the name implies makes no sense at low level.  It's like having a first level archmage.  There is no role behind the name - the idea of saying "we need a new warlord" in the tavern is ludicrous - adventuring parties are adventurers, not soldiers.  They go on adventures by default, they don't "declare war"!  This name, this concept, belong on a battlefield with soldiers at the "warlord's" beck and call, and a D&D party is NOT that. 3) The warlord's powers imply that somehow he's more knowledgeable about archery than the ranger, more knowledgeable about blade combat than the specialist fighter - he's the dork know-it-all who somehow knows better than the specialists about their specialty, if they'd only listen to him.  It makes no sense in a D&D class context, where classes are the masters of their own specialist domains.  The warlord's specialist domain is "illegitimate contemptuous out-of-line order-barking know-it-all who deserves to be ignored if it weren't for the stupid rules" IMO. 4) If they really have to exist in the game, IMO all the warlord's powers should have been dismembered and distributed among the legitimate D&D classes.  The ranger should be instructing the other PCs on how best to do archery, the fighter how to fight with a sword and board maybe, the paladin should inspire with his righteous divine courage etc.  Okay, enough ranting...but really, argh! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification