D&D 5E I'm Not Sure We Need a Warlord - Please put down that rotten egg.

[Tony Vargas]

Well, there is also the marshal from 3.5. It's just as much a warlord version as the old Theif is a version of the rogue.

The Rogue was little more than a re-named Thief in 2e, while the Warlord bore virtually no resemblance to the Marshal, so not really.

In the sense that the name Marshal, like Thief, implies a very narrow concept that might not work well with many parties, though, the analogy is fair.

The reason there are so many suggested things a warlord should do is the same reason that most classes have a long list of things they can do. I.e., it is a versatile, broad concept, with plenty of room for a full class and a handful of subclasses.

True. And the sorts of contributions the Warlord would traditionally make to a party also require a high degree of versatility, since adversity can rarely be arranged in advance to leverage a specialty.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The Rogue was little more than a re-named Thief in 2e, while the Warlord bore virtually no resemblance to the Marshal, so not really.

In the sense that the name Marshal, like Thief, implies a very narrow concept that might not work well with many parties, though, the analogy is fair.

True. And the sorts of contributions the Warlord would traditionally make to a party also require a high degree of versatility, since adversity can rarely be arranged in advance to leverage a specialty.

Which is why, imo, the class should use something like maneuvers or the monks ki abilities, giving it a list of things to choose from to deal with different situations.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Which is why, imo, the class should use something like maneuvers or the monks ki abilities, giving it a list of things to choose from to deal with different situations.

Maneuvers would have to be expanded, and ki is explicitly magical, but, yes, some sort of reasonably flexible resource.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Like I said, something *like* one of those. Either one would be a workable mechanical chassis.

 

[mellored]

...don't forget it should also do X. And it has to be able to Y, and it needs to have Z.

This is exactly why I keep pointing out that this so called warlord advocate community won't be happy until we have a kitchen-sink for a class. So many people want to add "one more crucial warlord feature" or else it's a fail. There can be no warlord class that isn't broken. Because you can's stop coming up with more things for a warlord to be able to do.

A wizard/cleric/druid/bard can also do X, Y and Z. Just not at the same time. Preparing and casting bless, means you can't also prepare and cast command.

Similarly, a warlord who gives a bonus to attack, won't be able to give a bonus to saves. You need to choose.
Though a major difference (IMO) is that warlords should choose every turn, rather than blessing for 1 minute.

Which (IMO) also means the warlord bonuses should be pretty particular. Rather then a bonus to all saves, you give a bonus to just 1 saves. If you pick to boost the parties Wis saves, then get hit with arrows and a fireball, too bad, you wasted your action.

If the immediate discussion is any evidence (healing and save bonuses), sounds like you can just reskin a paladin and you are good to go. AmIright?

If you replace smite with attack granting, possibly.

i.e. when you make an attack, you can expend a level 1 slot to allow an ally to attack. expending higher level slots allows 1 more ally to attack per spell level.

Currently, i think battlemaster 3/mastermind 3/paladin X is the closest to a warlord.


But, why not take the opportunity to make something new?

 

[cmad1977]

...don't forget it should also do X. And it has to be able to Y, and it needs to have Z.

This is exactly why I keep pointing out that this so called warlord advocate community won't be happy until we have a kitchen-sink for a class. So many people want to add "one more crucial warlord feature" or else it's a fail. There can be no warlord class that isn't broken. Because you can's stop coming up with more things for a warlord to be able to do.

If the immediate discussion is any evidence (healing and save bonuses), sounds like you can just reskin a paladin and you are good to go. AmIright?

No!! Must grant extra attacks!!

... See what I did there?

 

[ChrisCarlson]

As always on this topic, no, you aren't right.

The authority on the subject has spoken. Goodtoknow.

 

[Hussar]

One does have to wonder, [MENTION=6801216]ChrisCarlson[/MENTION], what your end goal in these threads are. Obviously you don't want a warlord, but, this is a forum for those who want to discuss a potential warlord. It's been shunted off to its own ghetto precisely because of people endlessly threadcrapping and cluttering up the main discussion forum.

I asked a fairly specific question and got a pretty specific answer. Is there room for a warlord? Yup, while a 5e warlord would draw from different niches than the 4e warlord, there are certainly enough spaces for a non-magical tactical character.

What's your goal here?

 

[ZzarkLinux]

...don't forget it should also do X. And it has to be able to Y, and it needs to have Z.

Those sound like subclasses. One subclass to focus on ShortRest based healing/saving throws/potion brewing. Second subclass to focus on ShortRest based combat buffs/military study/equipment buffs. Not overpowered if they scale it right.

If the immediate discussion is any evidence (healing and save bonuses), sounds like you can just reskin a paladin and you are good to go. AmIright?

Paladin = Melee Warrior + Diety Knowledge + Wisdom + Magic support.
Warlord = Generalist Warrior + Tactical knowledge + Intelligence + Mundane support.

But I don't mind them re-releasing classes with each story arc. Each class in D&D should have a distinct fluff anyway, otherwse the class system doesn't work. That's why Fighter and Rogue conflict with every other martial class.

They should have released an "Elemental Evil Fighter" & "Elemental Evil Rogue" and "Elemental Evil Warlord" with the campaign guide. Kinda like what they did with the Purple Barney Knight. Then they could have released more / new classes for everyone, given out a Warlord, and a good adventure all in one product.

Edit: Typos and rewording

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Obviously you don't want a warlord...

Then you are just ignorant of the situation. What I don't want is needlessly irritating mechanics or broken classes mucking up a game I enjoy. There are other systems and editions that suit the needs of some people asking for certain warlord features and design criteria. That's okay. But smashing square pegs through round holes seems an odd choice to ask of the devs. Also, I've asked on numerous occasions, of anyone who is so passionate about the idea of a full-warlord, to post one for public consideration and critique. And I have repeatedly gone on the record that I would like to see a balanced, 5e-faithful, warlord sub/class. No one has offered one. Just a stack of mile-long wishlists, demands for infinite flexibility, and disparaging comments about the devs (for "insulting 4e fans") and anyone who is skeptical of the notion that you (the general you) can get everything you want in a neat little package.

...but, this is a forum for those who want to discuss a potential warlord.

Odd. I cannot seem to find that description of this subforum anywhere. This is a subforum for all discussions of warlords. Not just fanboi lovefests. Criticism, and cautionary sentiments, are valid forms of discussion WRT such a thing as this. Or do you not agree?

It's been shunted off to its own ghetto precisely because of people endlessly threadcrapping and cluttering up the main discussion forum.

Interesting. I'd argue it was shunted here to its own prestigious subforum because of the countless warlord threads that were clogging the front page of the main forum. Which one you wanna bet is more accurate?

I asked a fairly specific question and got a pretty specific answer. Is there room for a warlord? Yup, while a 5e warlord would draw from different niches than the 4e warlord, there are certainly enough spaces for a non-magical tactical character.

And my answer is, "Another warlord? Why? There is already plenty of options scratching that itch in 5e." <shrug>

What's your goal here?

To discuss and comment on an interesting hot topic in a public forum. What's yours?