D&D 5E Is the Noble class a good Warlord substitute?

[Zardnaar]

Bump. Maybe this one is more relevant right now. at least take it as a chance to give specific examples of what works and doesn't work with warlord brews. I have seen lots of comments on how warlords brews tend to be broken and maybe with this class you guys can give more specific examples? -just be nice, a little...-

A sequal form you could be good. Mistwell had an excellent list of small things that were a bit odd withthe class and I think the tactitian is a little weak. The Bravura one looks decent and the Heart one could be OP in the right party or all but useless in the wrong one. I don't think it needs to lose its weapons etc just not have a decent selection or any ability that enhances them in any way (like the mage).

 

[JohnLynch]

I need to ask, do you guys think the Noble class does a good job on helping express character concepts that required the warlord?

I saw this thread and figured I should weigh in on this discussion given I've been championing the Noble so much of late. The reason for my proselytizing is due to the fact I'm seeing people say "Warlords simply can't work in 5e ever" or "I really want a Warlord and would love to play one." I've been pointing out the noble for those who want a warlord because to me it does very much fit a lot of the archetypes of the warlord class. For those who say the warlord absolutely cannot work, I feel the noble is a good example of why it can.

I wouldn't say the noble class can currently fit every single warlord archetype. However it does fit the popular ones. To fit every single one, it would potentially need more subclasses (not that I have a specific archetype that I feel is lacking. I'm just assuming there are some ). As for the design of the class, it's a bit quirky (see a complete lack of armor and weapon proficiencies for the base class) but I think it works well at achieving what it's trying to achieve. There may be some minor support for the Path of the Brave subclass and possibly the Path of the Tactician subclasses. I'll try to remember to pop in once I can confirm whether or not it will be coming.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Someone worked hard on all the classes in 5E.

First off: I find this thread somewhat annoying because Moonsong has been pushing this class in almost every post they've made in the Warlord thread; second: as Mephista points out, unless we buy it, we really have no idea what its about at all; third: from the glance we do get at it we get a non-combat class with no weapon or armor proficiency whose initial art looks more like classic French nobility than a battlefield commander.

So aside from being another shameless plug on the subject, the basic concept of a "non combat" leader flies in the face of what the Warlord was. So yes, at this point I find it quite insulting.

A 5e warlord would have to be more than the 4e warlord was. Classes in 5e tend to be more broad, with 4e class concepts often being about as broad as 5e subclass concepts.
The star wars saga Noble is a better example of what a 5e warlord could be, as long as it wasn't called a noble, and if it had at least medium armor and halfway decent HP. perhaps with one subclass upgrading both as part of the subclass.

Conceptually, as long as the tactician feels more like they could be a soldier, or part of a mercenary band, etc, the Noble could very well work.

Again, conceptually, the Noble looks like it covers a lot of what the battlemaster fighter and mastermind rogue don't cover. I'd still rather have a "captain" class that involves support in all three tiers, with options for lazylording or not, and doesn't have a name that assumes social rank, but I'm gonna show this to my buddy who likes warlords as very smart tactician-scholar types, and see what he thinks.

It's certainly not an insult to people who want a 5e warlord.

This is a direct attempt at giving us that. I don't expect any such attempt to actually be called "warlord" as that is the single worst name any class has ever been given in the history of DnD, and possibly of TTRPGs.

 

[TwoSix]

Finally picked up an EN5ider subscription, and I have to say:

I've never wanted to play a 5e class more than I want to play a Heart Noble. And honestly, the other two subclasses also look really fun. Really good work, [MENTION=6689464]MoonSong[/MENTION].

 

[Garthanos]

Sounds like my princess build warlord lives on in spirit

 

[Pauln6]

I enjoyed the article and would be tempted to play a path of the heart noble just to see how it plays.

 

[Alexemplar]

I really like the Noble class and how it provides options for both the warrior-style support character as well as the more pacifist "lazy-lord" style ones. Could it use some tweaks? Sure, but I don't know a single class (including my own homebrewed ones) that I wouldn't tweak. That and I actually think the name Noble is more fitting for most fantasy RPGs and has a longer history in D&D than the "Warlord". In my first ever D&D game, one of the players used a the Noble NPC class from the 3e DMG with some slight modifications.

I can understand people being reluctant about paying a dollar for access a homebrewed class they may or may not like, but that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

 

[TwoSix]

I enjoyed the article and would be tempted to play a path of the heart noble just to see how it plays.

I played it for 5 sessions, got killed sadly, and it was intended for a short campaign. It was quite fun, though. I took Healer and Inspiring Leader, as well, so I was about as pure a support character as I could get.

I can understand people being reluctant about paying a dollar for access a homebrewed class they may or may not like, but that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

EN5ider is pretty darn cheap for what you get from it; I'm subscribed to it, as well as a couple other homebrew Patreons, and it's totally worth the money. There's better stuff out there than what WotC makes.