The Warlord, about it's past present and future, pitfalls and solutions. (Please calling all warlord players)

[sheadunne]

I like the warlord but always felt its abilities belonged under the paladin, at least in my view of the paladin. However I also think the paladin belongs under a knight class. Any which way it shapes up, I like the abilities and don't want to lose the melee support archetype. With the exception of healing which I'm a strong proponent of belonging with the cleric. Temp HP is fine though. Shrug.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I'm definitely in favor of Warlord being its only class, but I do support it mitigating damage as an option. If healing HP is an option (and labeled as such, not just on a list of powers), and mitigating damage is an option (and labeled as such, not just on a list of powers), I think I'll be perfectly fine with the class. As always, play what you like

 

[Obryn]

I'm definitely in favor of Warlord being its only class, but I do support it mitigating damage as an option. If healing HP is an option (and labeled as such, not just on a list of powers), and mitigating damage is an option (and labeled as such, not just on a list of powers), I think I'll be perfectly fine with the class. As always, play what you like

For the record, this would satisfy me completely as well. I don't need healing to be the default, just an option.

-O

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

For the record, this would satisfy me completely as well. I don't need healing to be the default, just an option.

-O

Agreed. Particularly if you can do both, depending on your build choices. Unfortunately, Mearls' tweet doesn't indicate that they're heading in that direction. This is both confusing and saddening, since I thought Next was supposed to be all about the Options, but it looks like that's true only insofar as those options don't irritate the militant traditionalist crowd.

 

[Hussar]

I'm definitely in favor of Warlord being its only class, but I do support it mitigating damage as an option. If healing HP is an option (and labeled as such, not just on a list of powers), and mitigating damage is an option (and labeled as such, not just on a list of powers), I think I'll be perfectly fine with the class. As always, play what you like

Gonna chime in with a "Me three" post.

I have no problems with martial healing being an option, so long as it actually IS an option.

I don't even have a problem with a warlord being a subclass of paladin or knight. In fact, knight isn't a bad name for warlord IMO. I realize that not all knights were leaders, but, it does fit the archetype rather well. And probably carries far less baggage for some people than warlord.

But, yeah, if a class is being broken up and then bits fed to the background/feat/whatever sections, that's pretty much throwing the class under the bus.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Gonna chime in with a "Me three" post.

Well aren't I popular with Warlord players?

I don't even have a problem with a warlord being a subclass of paladin or knight. In fact, knight isn't a bad name for warlord IMO. I realize that not all knights were leaders, but, it does fit the archetype rather well. And probably carries far less baggage for some people than warlord.

Yeah, knights were generally trained in tactics, both large and small scale, so I wouldn't mind it having the name knight. I'm okay with the name Warlord getting in due to the name from 4e, though.

But, yeah, if a class is being broken up and then bits fed to the background/feat/whatever sections, that's pretty much throwing the class under the bus.

I totally agree. This is what I think of Paladin being disassembled (Fighter / Cleric, or Fighter + Specialty or whatever), or Monk being Fighter + Theme. It's not at all the same. As always, play what you like

 

[Hussar]

Now, just to jump the fence a bit, I don't think all classes are equal. Not every class actually needs to be a full "class". Assassin leaps to mind here. An assassin isn't really a class IMO, simply because it lacks the depth needed for a full class. It's a rogue/thief with a death attack. At least, that's the 1st edition version of Assassin. Do we really need an entire class for this? Not IMO.

OTOH, I can see a ninja class separate from rogue. Ninja combines too many elements, both mundane and magical to really be a good fit for either a rogue with benefits or monk with benefits. So, I can see Ninja (at least the 3e Ninja) being its own class.

It's all about how much depth a given class has. It would be extremely difficult to recreate a warlord's functions using feats. I mean, even a low level warlord (say 5th level) is granting actions pretty much every single round he acts. That's not possible using the feat/background system.

 

[pemerton]

I like the warlord but always felt its abilities belonged under the paladin, at least in my view of the paladin.

I think the CHA warlord in particular has a reasonable degree of thematic overlap with the paladin.

But my concern with the warlord in D&Dnext is a bit of a different one.

In 4e, the warlord, and especially the granting of actions, is fairly tightly integrated into a rich action economy which uses multiple "points of entry" to signal the effectiveness of encounter powers:

* Bonus damage dice;

* Bonus effects;

* Bonus actions - immediate actions, minor actions, or free actions for your friends.

The warlord's ability to grant actions is tightly bound up in this situation.

D&Dnext, though, doesn't really have the encounter power as a concept, so it's harder to see where it has space for warlord-style bonus actions, other than either the at-will version ("You attack instead of me") or the lending-damage-dice-to-my-friends version.

I therefore have some sympathy for Mearls, insofar as the mechancial simplicity of his system seems to leave little space for a class like the warlord, that expresses its theme by leveraging 4e's mechanical sophistication.

 

[Argyle King]

Personally, I'd really like to have a healing class option other than Cleric.

I also like having an inspiring/charismatic fighter type which isn't bound to being a paladin.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I just wanted to chime in to say that, upon reflection, renaming the warlord to "knight" makes a tremendous amount of sense. The warlord name always felt awkward to me, and previous knight classes have been too narrow and lacking. Merging the two feels more robust, be creating a leader-warrior skilled in arms, tactics, and strategy.