Robert Schwalb releases his version of Warlord

Robert Schwalb, who designed one of my favorite games (Shadow of the Demon Lord), with a version of one of my favorite classes? Sold.

 

[smbakeresq]

Yeah, that's all we need is another class that gets enveloped into the incessant multiclassing of disparate identities for no other reason that they use the same ability score and thus can be min-maxed with ease.

While that is correct, it really is only a problem with the Hexblade.

 

[smbakeresq]

The warlord isn't only for PCs but also to be the leader of monster squads and the PCs have to choose between to attack the buffer boss or the buffed big guy.

If there is a module about skimishes gangs vs gangs or mass battles, the warlord could be very useful. Maybe we will see a Real Time Strategy D&D videogame set in Cerilia (Birthright).

In this case at level 10 the bad-guy Warlord will be pumping up the initiative and the damage of all allies within 30' attacking with weapons. That makes hordes very relevant.

 

[Retreater]

I'm in 4E mode, as I'm running two 4E campaigns.

Just looking at the warlord for my 4E game, and I hate to say that while I love the concept, it's very under-powered (unless I'm missing something). You don't get the bonus healing that Clerics or Bards get, your At-Wills are situational at best (and worthless at worst). Your best ability is to let other people make Basic Melee Attacks (which aren't nearly as good as what At-Wills are). It requires having 3 great abilities scores to be decent (Strength, Intelligence, and Charisma) - so you can't specialize. Probably the worst Leader in the game.

This one ... I'd like to know more before buying it. I have a feeling it's gonna be mechanically unbalanced and serve little point from a game perspective (like much of 5E).

 

[FrogReaver]

It’s boring to talk about a warlord class that we can’t actually talk about the features of.

 

[smbakeresq]

The limits to the class are subtle but there. I think it would fit better in a campaign like mine (50/50 combat/RP, 4-6 encounters between SR, variant rules, bigger crits, etc.) then what I have seen others describe as their standard (mostly combat, plenty of SR to recharge everything, etc.)

I do like the healing ability based of each person hit dice, which recover slower then your HP does. I use a PC HD left to heal with more as timer than anything, we just push the players until they have used up at least half of their HD for healing, so that means generally 4-6 encounter before each SR. I think in our case the Warlord would be better.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Y'know, although it's a completely redundant class, you would've thought since there's a screaming need for another Int-based class - and since Warlords are supposed to be master tacticians, maybe having some of its key abilities key off Int would've been, y'know, a no-brainer? But, nooo, we have yet another Cha-based class. Cause we need more of those.

So basically it's a Paladin that functions in an anti-magic field. Because that happens to my Paladin all the freaking time.

 

[Zardnaar]

While that is correct, it really is only a problem with the Hexblade.

And Warlock and Sorcerer and Paladin. AKA the Sorlock, the Paldin/Sorcerer Gish, even the Paladin/warlock is fairly decent.

 

[Zardnaar]

I'm in 4E mode, as I'm running two 4E campaigns.

Just looking at the warlord for my 4E game, and I hate to say that while I love the concept, it's very under-powered (unless I'm missing something). You don't get the bonus healing that Clerics or Bards get, your At-Wills are situational at best (and worthless at worst). Your best ability is to let other people make Basic Melee Attacks (which aren't nearly as good as what At-Wills are). It requires having 3 great abilities scores to be decent (Strength, Intelligence, and Charisma) - so you can't specialize. Probably the worst Leader in the game.

This one ... I'd like to know more before buying it. I have a feeling it's gonna be mechanically unbalanced and serve little point from a game perspective (like much of 5E).

YOU have to build it around the lazylord or everything that buffs basic attacks. Requires a lot of 4E splat.

 

[smbakeresq]

So basically it's a Paladin that functions in an anti-magic field. Because that happens to my Paladin all the freaking time.

No, I think a Paladin is better and has better defensive abilities and is less party dependent. This version of Warlord is more party dependent as it needs other PCs to have good weapon attacks. Really it needs a party of 5 or more.

I will try it out in a bit of an odd party Wizard, Valor Bard, Open Hand Monk, in place of my Paladin. I think it will be just ok. With a 5th melee member it would clearly be better.

 

[smbakeresq]

I'm in 4E mode, as I'm running two 4E campaigns.

Just looking at the warlord for my 4E game, and I hate to say that while I love the concept, it's very under-powered (unless I'm missing something). You don't get the bonus healing that Clerics or Bards get, your At-Wills are situational at best (and worthless at worst). Your best ability is to let other people make Basic Melee Attacks (which aren't nearly as good as what At-Wills are). It requires having 3 great abilities scores to be decent (Strength, Intelligence, and Charisma) - so you can't specialize. Probably the worst Leader in the game.

This one ... I'd like to know more before buying it. I have a feeling it's gonna be mechanically unbalanced and serve little point from a game perspective (like much of 5E).

I crushed with it my Bravura Warlord in 4e. Off-turn attacks, battlefront shift, free basic melee (or substitutes if your group plans correctly.) I wish I could remember more.


With this one your attacks are regular fighter attacks without the benefit of styles, so your damage is less than other Martial classes. Others will do more since they benefit from your features.