Mike Mearls Happy Fun Hour: The Warlord

[FrogReaver]

Anyone else find it interesting that:
War = Battle
Lord = Master

 

[cbwjm]

The name warlord has a good chance of being taken by Mearls Tactical Fighter Subclass.

In that event we are thinking of what a replacement name would be for a 4e-esqe warlord class.

Ah right, I think I got lost somewhere along the way. I thought we were talking about replacing the name of the subclass.

 

[FrogReaver]

Ah right, I think I got lost somewhere along the way. I thought we were talking about replacing the name of the subclass.

That would be preffered by us but a much less likely option IMO

 

[Tony Vargas]

The name warlord has a good chance of being taken by Mearls Tactical Fighter Subclass.

Inappropriate as that would be, it's not like Mike hasn't done equally inappropriate things already.
But, it's also not like he's above re-using names, either. At the end 4e (including Essentials & post-Essentials) had the War Priest and the Warpriest as well as the Hunter Ranger and the Ranger(Hunter), not to mention there's more than a couple powers in the compendium with the name of a class following them, because the power name was inadvertently (or in the case of the Sentinel Druid's Healing Word, quite advertently) re-used.

I'd be much more concerned with the quality of any forthcoming sub-class or class than the name.

I thought we were talking about replacing the name of the subclass.

That would be a lot more reasonable, and, the sub-class so far, a lead-from-the-front tactical type might lift the Paragon Path name 'Battle Captain' from the PH1. (I'm not sure if that'd be neat symmetry with the BM, or feel redundant with both a BM and a BC.)
It's also closest to the Bravura, because it's necessarily such a tank.

Either of those would be better than wasting the Warlord name on a sub-class.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Perhaps the best thing about this name would be that Zapp and Kobold wind up retroactively dubbed as warlords.

Eh. I can live with that.

The name warlord has a good chance of being taken by Mearls Tactical Fighter Subclass.

In that event we are thinking of what a replacement name would be for a 4e-esqe warlord class.

Do we know whether Mearls' HFH class design demonstration is actually likely to become an official product?

Until it does, the existence of that highly unofficial warlord does not invalidate your homebrew class being called the Warlord any more than the existence of my homebrew Warlord invalidates your homebrew Warlord.

If you want a tactical/inspiring leader-type concept, you could take a leaf from earlier editions and call it a Marshal, or a White Raven, or just go with names like Leader, Officer, Commander, Director, Conductor, Maestro, Helm.
In the same way that Barbarians don't have to be outlanders from uncivilised lands or have beards, a Commander class is not required to actually be in a position of authority or to be able to command their companions to obey them.

If you're going for a direct conversion of the 4e Warlord only however, just stick with Warlord as a class name. If the intent is to evoke that specific example, the name will be important to do so.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Do we know whether Mearls' HFH class design demonstration is actually likely to become an official product?

We do not.
OT1H, it's a sub-class, and rolling out sub-classes is not something he seems hesitant to do. OTOH, it's got the actual name 'Warlord,' and books could start burning again. :shrug:

Until it does, the existence of that highly unofficial warlord does not invalidate your homebrew class being called the Warlord any more than the existence of my homebrew Warlord invalidates your homebrew Warlord.

Or, even after it does, really.

If you want a tactical/inspiring leader-type concept, you could take a leaf from earlier editions and call it a Marshal, or a White Raven, or just go with names like Leader, Officer, Commander, Director, Conductor, Maestro, Helm.

Marshal is tainted by how bad the Marshal was, and, like most of the rest implies military rank and/or authority of some sort. White Raven, like PDK, or any other color-coded superhero name, is a tad specific. More the kind of thing you attach to a PrC (which, I may have mentioned in the past, 5e could really use). ("Helm?")

If you're going for a direct conversion of the 4e Warlord only however, just stick with Warlord as a class name. If the intent is to evoke that specific example, the name will be important to do so.

A direct conversion would be non-viable. 5e is significantly powered up from 4e in a lot of ways (also knocked down in others, but I don't think even the most direct conversion would fail to convert from +1/2 level to proficiency....)

 

[Yaarel]

Mike Mearls Happy Fun Hour (2018 3-27)

Note, the linked video has a lengthy ‘title page’. The episode itself starts at about 4 minutes and 10 seconds into the video.

 

[Yaarel]

Mearls identifies Odysseus as an archetype for the warlord. Not bad.

He emphasizes Intelligence for group tactics (Trojan Horse, etcetera), and Strength for competence at fighting.

So far, he seems to downplay or even overlook Charisma as it relates to leadership, morale, fame, and destiny.

Alexander the Great and William Wallace get mentioned approvingly in passing. Stress the personal combat prowess. In other words, leading from the front into battle, rather than a strategist from the distance.

 

[Geeknamese]

Mearls identifies Odysseus as an archetype for the warlord. Not bad.

He emphasizes Intelligence for group tactics (Trojan Horse, etcetera), and Strength for competence at fighting.

So far, he seems to downplay or even overlook Charisma as it relates to leadership, fame, and destiny.

Alexander the Great and William Wallace get mentioned approvingly in passing. Stress the personal combat prowess. In other words, leading from the front into battle, rather than a strategist from the distance.

Perfectly ok with focus on Intelligence and it adding another Charisma-based subclass to the game. The Warlord is a tactician and mostly designed to influence party members so Charisma focus is not really needed.

People can still play the Charismatic Fighter, Paladin or whatnot to emulate charismatic leaders but for a tactician, it should be Intelligence.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Mearls identifies Odysseus as an archetype for the warlord. Not bad.

He emphasizes Intelligence for group tactics (Trojan Horse, etcetera), and Strength for competence at fighting.

So far, he seems to downplay or even overlook Charisma as it relates to leadership, fame, and destiny.

Alexander the Great and William Wallace get mentioned approvingly in passing. Stress the personal combat prowess. In other words, leading from the front into battle, rather than a strategist from the distance.

Nod. It is a fighter sub-class he's designing, not a Warlord class, so it's necessarily very limited in the range of concepts it can cover relative to the original Warlord (which, in turn, was limited by it's native system to Leader concepts).

The sub-class is closer to a Bravura Warlord, but even tankier, and might be better called a Tactician or - oh, there was a 3e PrC: Tactical Soldier, that'd be a fair name for it.