D&D 5E How many fans want a 5E Warlord?

[mellored]

Emphasis mine... and yet the major reason cited for the Warlord not being a subclass of fighter is that the fighter possess too much combat prowess... so which is it? Must we exclude a certain level of prowess in one on one combat from the archetype or not?

Balance.

It's the same reason why paladins don't get big cleric spells. Because they also have martial power.

Wait so is a warlord a one on one combatant capable of standing with trained swordsmen and warriors... or is he supposed to be tactically adept but lesser in personal combat. THis is the problem with the archetype it's rarely if ever separate from the warrior.

IMO, the warlord should have the same martial ability as a cleric.

 

[mellored]

It's also why I love the conceptual model of using talents trees within a class (something star wars saga excelled in).

Easier to define a character within a loose category, and more permission to "customize" as desired.

Agreed. If i could point-buy class features / feats, i could more easily get close to a warlord.

Take battle master maneuvers, bardic inspiration, inspiring leader feat, and paladin aura, and i've got most of the way there.

Though there's still some pieces missing for a full class. There's just not enough martial abilities.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Aldarc]

Emphasis mine... and yet the major reason cited for the Warlord not being a subclass of fighter is that the fighter possess too much combat prowess... so which is it? Must we exclude a certain level of prowess in one on one combat from the archetype or not?

Both. The warlord has formidable combat prowess that allows her to hold her own in a battle. Their physical prowess is still lesser than a dedicated fighter, but their valuable tactical/morale support provides its own form of combat prowess. The warlord's fighting prowess should probably be more comparable to a cleric, which is another class that can hold its own in physical combat, but still supplements their fighting abilities with team support.

Wait so is a warlord a one on one combatant capable of standing with trained swordsmen and warriors... or is he supposed to be tactically adept but lesser in personal combat. THis is the problem with the archetype it's rarely if ever separate from the warrior.

The same could be said for the paladin and ranger in regards to the core warrior archetype. The ranger is a warrior. The paladin is a warrior.

 

[mellored]

I can't imagine how that character would be fun to play but different strokes and all. One thing I hate is games where your "role" is baked in but it seems that you had to choose to be a lazylord. I did not like 4e for a lot of reason but that would be an extreme example I take it.

Thanks!

Yea, lazylord was something you had to specifically go for. The majority of the warlord powers where "i hit and give my allies an offensive bonus".

And yes, it wasn't for everyone, and doesn't need to be a full class. There's only so many ways to provide buffs anyways.

Like a pacifist cleric. Just make sure there's enough healing/buff/utility spells that he doesn't need to take blade barrier, and a sub-class to help it along.

 

[Remathilis]

I think part of what the appeal of the warlord class was was that it ennabled a more non-magical campaign if you wanted.

I think it's probably better to decide you want a non-magical campaign before you select your class, though.

And if you want that in D&D 5e, have someone pick up the Healer feat, and you'll be fine.

My point is that D&D does non-magical poorly, and a non-magical warlord isn't going to fix that. (But that's a different topic).

That said, I do think some form of "supernatural" power would make a warlord a viable class. I'm not sure what the power is through, but just "tactics" and "leadership" aren't strong enough. Even "rage" is billed as some primal force that barbarians channel only limited amounts per day. So if the warlord had some pseudo-magical/mystical element to claim his power from, I don't think as many people would complain. It doesn't have to be spells, but I don't think it could just be mundane either.

 

[Shades of Eternity]

My point is that D&D does non-magical poorly, and a non-magical warlord isn't going to fix that. (But that's a different topic).

That said, I do think some form of "supernatural" power would make a warlord a viable class. I'm not sure what the power is through, but just "tactics" and "leadership" aren't strong enough. Even "rage" is billed as some primal force that barbarians channel only limited amounts per day. So if the warlord had some pseudo-magical/mystical element to claim his power from, I don't think as many people would complain. It doesn't have to be spells, but I don't think it could just be mundane either.

Well drawing heavily from the classic example (Julius Caesar), give it an divine option for his bonuses (favoured by the gods).

However, it would be only one option for skinning purposes, because taking away the martial option of the class misses the point.

 

[mellored]

Well drawing heavily from the classic example (Julius Caesar), give it an divine option for his bonuses (favoured by the gods).

However, it would be only one option for skinning purposes, because taking away the martial option of the class misses the point.

"Warlords people them in way that seems beyond simple words. When they walk into a room everyone seems to hush, as if expecting a speech. People are enthralled and their size always seems to be bigger then life. Even a gnome warlord seems to stand tall in the mind of a half-orc, and he makes a common man feel like he can do great deeds."

 

[MoonSong]

Go for history if story doesn't work. You know what real-life person fits the warlord to a t? Joan of Arc. She lead armies with only a banner, carrying not a weapon herself. She is credited with tactical and inspirational achievements, and even for giving defensive bonuses (Hey look out, a cannon ball!, if there is a real life instance of powerful warning you have it)

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Interesting. Been noticing this recently. This shift to describe them more solidly as "leaders of armies". That's cool. Not sure how that fits into a typical D&D game. But cool. I'd much rather see that fleshed out than the whole "lazy boss of the group" thing, which is non-viable, AFAIC.