D&D 5E Quintis the Warlord, what can he do and when can he do it?

[Paul Smart]

I have seen in other threads proposals for the Noble to be the base class, with Warlord being a subclass. Other sub classes could be Mage Commander / War Mage and some sort of social / diplomat commander focusing on influene. I rather like this, what do others think?

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I have seen in other threads proposals for the Noble to be the base class, with Warlord being a subclass. Other sub classes could be Mage Commander / War Mage and some sort of social / diplomat commander focusing on influene. I rather like this, what do others think?

I have an even bigger problem with the name Noble than Warlord for the idea of a leader in war. If, as an example, I was to play a barbarian thane leading his tribe against giants invading his land, I would be weird to me have to take a class with all those etiquette and social interactions perks just to be able to play a ''warlord. I'd go the other way and give the ''warmaster'' a social-focused archetype: the frame of the class still allows him to be somewhat useful in combat even tho his archetype focused on out of combat perks.

Masquerade warpath
lvl 3: Expertise in Insight and Deception, Appeal to reason: As an action can make an opposed diplomacy check against wisdom to give disadvantage to next enemy attack.
lvl 9: Sow enemity: As an action, you can make a wisdom check against Presence (8+charisma+prof), on fail the enemy is no longer considered an ally by his companions. 1/short rest, becomes 2/short rest at 14.
Lvl 13: Stunned silence: If a social check results immdiatly result in a combat, the enemies must roll Initiative as tho they had been suprised by the party.
Lvl 17: Stare down: Inteligent humanoid must make a wisdom check against Presence to attack you, on a fail must chose another target, if suceed, become immune for the day.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I have seen in other threads proposals for the Noble to be the base class, with Warlord being a subclass. Other sub classes could be Mage Commander / War Mage and some sort of social / diplomat commander focusing on influene. I rather like this, what do others think?

'Noble' is a narrower concept, with a more definite/legitimate connotation of authority/social status, so it's worse in terms of objections to the name, and it's from SWSE rather than D&D, and there's already a Noble background.

So, not so much. Though, obviously, Noble could make a fine background for a Warlord if the player wanted to play something of the sort.

I have an even bigger problem with the name Noble than Warlord

It does have several strikes against it. It's already a Background. It strongly implies social position and legitimate authority. It has a clear IC meaning within the imagined world. It was also a class in a different WotC game, Star Wars SAGA edition, which is a plus (it was a pretty good class, with a similar schtick) & a minus (wrong game), really.

Warlord is really the best name, at least the best name that comes anything close to suggesting the tip of the iceberg of archetypes the class concept suggests while sounding appropriately fantasy-genre-esque (military ranks are even narrow, connote legitimate authority, and tend to sound more modern to our ears, since they're still in use). It's negative connotations are /less/ than those of existing classes, like the Warlock, or sub-classes like the Assassin, which made it in without a hint of complaint - the most nearly cogent complaint, the use of the term in the media to describe terrorist leaders is, ironically, equally applicable to the Cleric, used by the same media with equal frequency and greater scope to describe fatwa-issuing nominally-spiritual leaders of those same terrorists. Again, something which garnered not the least hint of controversy for that class.
And, as the Noble demonstrates, the name-space is crowded, not just with 5e classes & sub-classes & backgrounds, but with past-edition Classes, Kits, sub-Classes, and PrCs, bringing the risk of calling back something completely unrelated.

5e used the most recent past-edition name for every full class in the PH.
It should use Warlord for the Warlord.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

The reason I chose ''warmaster'' is because I think it represent the most what the class does: its someone who masters the art of war in theory and practice. The warlord, to me, will always refer to someone having an ascendant over the other characters in the social hierarchy, thus the term ''lord''.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The reason I chose ''warmaster'' is because I think it represent the most what the class does: its someone who masters the art of war in theory and practice.

As a relative neologism, it at least doesn't have a lot of baggage.

The warlord, to me, will always refer to someone having an ascendant over the other characters in the social hierarchy, thus the term ''lord''.

I can see why you like Noble even less, since it actually does carry that meaning, while Warlord does not connote socially legitimate 'ascendency.' (And could be taken to imply nothing more than mastery.)

OTOH, 'master,' like 'lord,' does imply such ascendancy, as well, either in a similar way, or in the sense of a teacher. So you do have to consciously take it as 'master of war,' not 'master of the party.' Just as you could take warlord as 'lord of war' rather than 'lord of the party.'

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Maybe just a translation thing. In french it translate to ''seigneur de guerre''; there's always the idea of ''lording over something/someone else''.

Even worst, it looks like in modern usage ''warlord'' is more used as someone who rule with fear and warmongering. Most examples of the use of the term ''warlord'' when I look on google refer to military dictators, most of them not being known for their strategic knowledge.

Anyway, its just a name. Let's not focus on it to much.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Maybe just a translation thing. In french it translate to ''seigneur de guerre''; there's always the idea of ''lording over something/someone else''.

Ah, I see. Interesting.

BTW, that makes me curious about your handle, again: I assume it's a reference to Vercingetorix? But is the play on words with 'vin' or 'Vincent?'

Even worst, it looks like in modern usage ''warlord'' is more used as someone who rule with fear and warmongering.

Yeah, the modern (and in some cases past) usages of a number of D&D class names (Warlock, Sorcerer, Thief, Assassin, etc) are as bad or worse in their connotations. Even 'Cleric,' if you hear it in the news, is likely in the context of a fatwa being issued.

Even where a word is seemingly nice, it's precise meaning is often off. D&D Paladins don't serve Charlemagne, for instance. (Now that'd be a Prestige Class.)

Anyway, its just a name. Let's not focus on it to much.

Agreed.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Its been my forum name for some years. Its a long and mostly uninteresting story. It began when we were playing 4e, lets say 6 years ago, when my friend and I were in university. One of our good friend, name Vincent was playing the ranger specialized on thrown + move in melee, riding a mount all the time and making joke that, given 4e poor handling of horsmanship, it would be better if he was the actual mount. After 2 or 3 years, he moved away and our Dm kill his character in some epic way in his last game. The game after that Rask, my half-orc slayer found a giant blue bull in a pen belonging to a warlord (the evil kind) and began to ride it out of combat. I made the joke that he was the reincarnation of Vincent (Vince) finaly acting as a mount. I was looking for a bad-ass name for my giant bull so, us being french canadian soon-to-be history teachers, decided he would be known a Vincegetorix, the most giant-ba**ed bull in the land.
At first my forum accounts and DnD insider were shared with the rest of the table, so I used a reference to the only name whe found all together (the password being an insult the evil warlord kept shouting at us).

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm thinking of adding the Spell Commander archetype, a warlord helping the spellcasters to keep a conserve a spell slot if his spell fizzle.

It occurs to me there's precedent for that in several 4e warlord utilities and attacks, letting an ally retain a spell (or other power) if it failed to work (in 4e, if it missed every target, in 5e it'd have to be if everyone failed their save), or regain one already expended.

 

[Paul Smart]

So, lots of great ideas have come out in the past few weeks. I am not so good at the mechanics but I think two ideas that are very interesting are a spell commander type warlord and a social / diplomat type warlord. Anyone have any ideas how this would work rule wise?