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

[Hussar]

Heh, Johnny3D3D - For as much as people complain about the term warlord, is there another class with as much baggage as a paladin?

 

[tuxgeo]

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.

I'm conflicted: I do agree with this sentiment, but the specifics leave me gasping for air -- just refer to Henry V, with their 500 French knights newly-created that day at Agincourt.

Any-danged-body can be a knight if the monarch says so; but being a real warlord and "leader of others" takes certain qualifications that are not possessed by some of the people who are thrust into such leadership roles.

Personally, I think the D&D 5E Next packets already have it right: a "Knight" is a Background.

Let's leave it at that, and find a better name for the "full class" version of the Warlord that hasn't made it into the 5E "Advanced" ruleset yet.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I'm conflicted: I do agree with this sentiment, but the specifics leave me gasping for air -- just refer to Henry V, with their 500 French knights newly-created that day at Agincourt.

Any-danged-body can be a knight if the monarch says so; but being a real warlord and "leader of others" takes certain qualifications that are not possessed by some of the people who are thrust into such leadership roles.

Personally, I think the D&D 5E Next packets already have it right: a "Knight" is a Background.

Let's leave it at that, and find a better name for the "full class" version of the Warlord that hasn't made it into the 5E "Advanced" ruleset yet.

I considered that, but ultimately it's no different than the cleric, druid, or ranger in that respect. While you don't necessarily have to fit the archetype to be given the title, the title very much is intended to evoke the archetype. Traditionally, what it meant to be a knight fits rather well with what the warlord is mechanically.

 

[pemerton]

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.

Sure. What's interesting to consider is how far you can achieve this with a class that is mechanically similar but thematically different:

* the paladin serves a god, calls for a warhorse, and heals by saintly touch;

* the warlord serves a mortal liege (or perhaps no one), earns/tames a warhorse, and heals by inspiration.

 

[pemerton]

On alternative names, I still favour "captain" because that is the word Tolkien uses.

But personally I don't see that the name needs to be changed. "Warlord" has traction.

 

[Bluenose]

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.

I'd prefer Noble, which has traction as a "leader"-type class in Star Wars RPGs and doesn't come with the same cultural baggage that you get with Knight. Plus it has a wider range of possible class options, ranging from warrior-aristocracy to more courtly types with limited combat skills.

Someone needs to remind Rodney Thompson about it.

 

[Garthanos]

Sure. What's interesting to consider is how far you can achieve this with a class that is mechanically similar but thematically different:

* the paladin serves a god, calls for a warhorse, and heals by saintly touch;

* the warlord serves a mortal liege (or perhaps no one), earns/tames a warhorse, and heals by inspiration.

Warlords create Paladin that serve them...

 

[Garthanos]

I'd prefer Noble, which has traction as a "leader"-type class in Star Wars RPGs and doesn't come with the same cultural baggage that you get with Knight. Plus it has a wider range of possible class options, ranging from warrior-aristocracy to more courtly types with limited combat skills.

Hmmm like my princess build warlord.

 

[sheadunne]

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.

Thematically, I don't think the warlord plays well if it has to give up its own actions. Unlike say the cleric, where I don't like healing as a rider, I don't have that same issue with the warlord providing bonus as a secondary effect of their attack. Perhaps similar to 3x TOB Crusader with HP being given out on a successful hit, or recharging another character's dice on a successful hit, or granting a move action when the warlord charges. I don't seen the warlord as a stand back and let others fight, I see him as a charge in and inspire others with your own actions. Leading the charge so to speak.

That said, it does work better I think in the AEDU system. I have never been a fan of the 3x attempt to do similar things with the Marshall and Crusader.

 

[Ratskinner]

You have fewer options if you want to play a Warlord, though. Your option is: Play a Fighter and spend all your character resources taking the "Warlordy" feats.

Or play a Rogue and spend all your character resources taking the "Warlordy" feats.
Or play a Wizard and spend all your character resources taking the "Warlordy" feats.
Or play a Cleric and spend all your character resources taking the "Warlordy" feats.
Or play a Paladin and spend all your character resources taking the "Warlordy" feats.
etc.
Then multiply each of those by the number of backgrounds...you wouldn't be starved for choices.

It works either way. Option-wise, there isn't really a big advantage or disadvantage to putting such things in one category or another. (There can be, mathematically, if one category has significantly fewer options than the other.)

In this case, I feel like D&D has suffered from a proliferation of fiddly-bits in characters over (at least) the last 2.5 editions. Some of whatever composed <class X> in 4e or 3e must get shifted into the theme or background area, or we've just added even more complexity. We are well-past the point of diminished returns in that dimension.