If a Warlord class existed, what two saves would you give it, and why?

[cbwjm]

I don't understand how INT gets more votes than CHA.

I'd say it's because we see the warlord more as an intelligent tactical class than a charismatic leader class.

 

[FrogReaver]

I'd say it's because we see the warlord more as an intelligent tactical class than a charismatic leader class.

Dangit Mearls!!! It definitely wasn't that way historically.

 

[Mistwell]

I don't understand how INT gets more votes than CHA.

It would appear more people are clicking on Int than Cha?

 

[mellored]

I don't understand how INT gets more votes than CHA.

Because bard, paladin, and somtimes sorcerer already cover Cha based support.

And the only other Int class is wizards.

 

[Jester David]

Can't you see Charismatic instead of Intelligent Warlord's just as easily?

Nope.
Inspiring characters by being Charismatic is the purview of the bard.

A charismatic and inspiring warlord dimishes the bard by taking away its one unique trick. Why not give the warlord sneak attack and rage at the same time?

 

[FrogReaver]

Nope.
Inspiring characters by being Charismatic is the purview of the bard.

Sadly the bard casts spells. Unless you are saying only spellcasters can be inspiring?

A charismatic and inspiring warlord dimishes the bard by taking away its one unique trick. Why not give the warlord sneak attack and rage at the same time?

Bard's are a full spell caster. It's a lot like saying Eldritch Knights step on Wizard's toes because they can cast Wizard spells. You know the Wizard's one unique trick?

 

[FrogReaver]

Because bard, paladin, and somtimes sorcerer already cover Cha based support.

And the only other Int class is wizards.

Forcing the Warlord to be intelligent just because there are other charisma classes surely isn't a good explanation?

 

[cbwjm]

Dangit Mearls!!! It definitely wasn't that way historically.

Well, part of it was. One of the builds when the warlord was released in 4e keyed off intelligence as the secondary stat while another keyed off charisma. People might prefer the intelligent warlord over the charismatic one.

 

[Jester David]

Sadly the bard casts spells. Unless you are saying only spellcasters can be inspiring?

Irrelevant.
The bard’s one unique thing is being inspiring. No classes should take that away. Just like we don't need a spellcaster class that can rage or sorerous class that sneak attack. It diminishes the classes.

Similarly, the warlord should be more unique and distinct, and less like a bard (or paladin) with “spells” crossed out and “gambits” written in. It should do NEW things that no other class can do and that don’t currently exist in the game.
It’d be equally boring and unimaginative to have a scout class that was just a ranger without spells, or a duskblade that was a rogue with offensive magic.

Bard's are a full spell caster. It's a lot like saying Eldritch Knights step on Wizard's toes because they can cast Wizard spells. You know the Wizard's one unique trick?

Spells aren’t the wizard’s one unique thing. (Although it is close.)
And the Eldritch Knight is a subclass. A warlord subclass that has a dash of inspiration wouldn’t be out of line, but it shouldn’t be the primary focus of the class.

 

[Kinematics]

Intelligence, Constitution.

This is about saves, not talent. Even if there are charismatic warlords, I don't expect them to have high saves against charisma effects. I do expect a warlord to see through illusions and other mental (magical and mundane) tricks. I might swap Constitution ⇒ Wisdom, on that basis. Yeah, it would be counter to Charm Person and Suggestion and similar things. Constitution saves have some things it works for that mesh with the class, but isn't quite as solid a "must have" save.

OK, Intelligence, Wisdom.