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

[Ratskinner]

You could play an effective druid, but "Druid" doesn't happen to be a class, or if the Druid class doesn't include healing which is in a "healer" specialty instead...is that really a problem?

Not to me. Not at all, AFAICT. I'm not sure why some people seem to feel that its some kind of insult if their character concept isn't a class, but is instead a combo. (There may be solid mechanical reasons for doing one or the other, but few people seem to be arguing that in these kinds of threads.)

If that is the "tack" to take, then you could make that assertion of almost any class.

Probably not the "core 4" (or at least the Fighter, Wizard, and Rogue), they seem to form the foundation for all the other classes. I think we should examine it for just about any other classes. It might even lead to new ways of imagining or mechanically presenting those character concepts.

The problem, as I see it, is that a specialty/theme are not complete/robust enough to encompass all the nuances of a class. You use a specialty or theme to tailor and "sprinkle" small details to an existing class. A class has a lot of load bearing to do, and warlord is a "thick" class with a lot of features not easily dumped on a specialty/theme.

It seems to me that specialties (I did prefer "theme" ::sigh: are a bit heavier than feats were in the WotC editions. They carry a bit more weight. I agree that class has a lot of load-bearing to do, but with Backgrounds and Specialties its a lot less load than previously. My gut feeling at this point is that Warlord should be a martial class that uses its combat dice (or whatever they are called) to grant all the fancy maneuver stuff. Leave the healing in a specialty, then folks that hate it can leave it out.

 

[Ratskinner]

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 don't think so. Could you tell me more? I mean, to me, if the character concept is still viable and supported, what difference does it make? What is so magical about "its a class?" I personally don't care if Druid is a subtype of Cleric, Assassin is a subtype of Rogue, Barbarian\Ranger\Cavalier is a subtype of fighter? If, at the end of chargen process, I've got a thing that is functionally equivalent, what's the difference?

 

[Ratskinner]

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.

I tend to agree.

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.

ermm...seems more like a specialized "scheme" to me. Although it probably depends on whose version of "Ninja" you're shooting for.

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.

I would say a few things: First, I think that a Warlord class makes some sense to allow use of the "combat dice" for Warlordy maneuvers, but that those maneuvers might look very different under 5e (i.e. maybe they don't grant extra actions as much.) That's simply because the 5e Warlord is in a different rules environment than the 4e Warlord, not because anything was particularly wrong with the 4e Warlord. Secondly, specialties are carrying more weight than feats of previous editions. I mean probably half the Fighter/Thieves I've seen would be happily represented in the playtest by a Fighter with the Skulker or Ambusher specialties. In such a setup, moving some of an old class's functions into a portable specialty makes some sense. (For the Warlord, I would suggest the healing.)

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

Whether the warlord should be a class, specialty, or part of another class really depends on how deep the mechanics need to be to express the concept. And at this point, I think that's the direction this conversation should turn.

1. What is the warlord's concept?
2. What does he do (without mentioning mechanics)?
3. How might that be expressed within the constructs of D&D Next?

My Answers:

1. I see the warlord as a warrior who, while skilled at arms, focuses on leadership and support. He may fight from the front, but some of his focus must always be on the battle as a whole. Outside of combat, the warlord is still a leader, driven toward goals both personal and for those he leads and serves.
2. The warlord fights with weapons, inspires allies, keeps aware of the fight, and issues commands. Commands, if followed, augment the abilities of allies or provide new opportunities.
3. Just as the fighter is "martial skill + maneuvers", the warlord is "martial skill + commands". For balance purposes, commands should be equal to maneuvers.
   
   Inspiration: as a concept, this is a lot like rage, and should follow similar mechanics. Advantage on some specific action, bonuses on more general actions, and/or resistance to damage.
   
   Awareness of the Fight: the warlord is trained in spot and listen, and perhaps the ability to add the skill die to initiative.
   
   Commands: These would function a lot like words of power, allowing the warlord to issue commands while still taking actions. Commands would never force an ally to act, but provide benefits if they do, such as the warlord adding extra dice to their attack or damage, or granting them an extra maneuver, attack, or at-will spell. I see a lot of opportunity for synergy commands, where if two allies both follow a command, the effects are extra large. For example, an area of effect spell causing just enough confusion in the enemy for the fighter to get several attacks in.

 

[Argyle King]

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

tell me about it...

I'm a big fan of the knight in shining armor archetype. However, I have very very rarely played a paladin because there's just way too much religious/alignment baggage. To be fair, I understand that and it makes sense in the context of a holy warrior. However, I find it odd that the idea of a paladin seems to be so heavily tied to how I imagine the stereotypical crusader in a world where polytheism is the rule of the day.

Sometimes I'm also unsure of what the paladin's place is in comparison to the cleric. What does a paladin offer that a cleric/fighter doesn't? Does it make sense that paladins can only be LG in world where many religions don't share the same moral outlook? What exactly does a paladin of Aphrodite do and how does that differ from what one of her clerics may do?

Yet, in spite of all of that, it's an accepted part of the game. Why then is the idea of a charismatic leader who leads via tactical savvy (the warlord) is viewed so strange? Because the name 'warlord' implies rank? ...paladin certainly implies a lot of things to me, and that doesn't seem to make a difference. How is 'knight' better? That also implies rank and social status.

Personally, I'd be happy with neither warlord nor paladin being classes *if* 5th Edition were to stick with backgrounds and themes as presented in the first playtest. However, as that doesn't seem to be the case, I believe Warlord should be a class.

 

[Hussar]

Jeff Carlsen - I think the best description of a warlord came out in a previous game. One of the players commented that when you play a warlord, you play the entire party. And I really think that's the heart of it. The warlord needs the mechanical framework to all him or her to influence the entire group and the entire group's tactics.

Without granting extra actions, I'm not really sure if that's possible. Sure, straight up buffing is nice, but, that's all a bard did. It's not really enough. Where a warlord's draw is, at least for me, is in the ability of having this character be able to look at the combat situation, and actually directly influence how it plays out, beyond what he can do just by himself.

Which, to me, means granting actions. To me, this is a much bigger element than healing to be honest. I never played a warlord to be the healer. I played a warlord because, for the first time in my D&D experience, I could actually be able to add tactics directly to situations.

 

[FireLance]

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.

A bit of a side trek, but I wonder why the distinction between an explict label as an option and an implicit label as an option (say, as one of a list of powers which the player must choose from, and presumably cannot choose all from). After all, it pretty much boils down to the same thing in the end: either you or the people you are playing with at the table have it, or not.

 

[pemerton]

1. What is the warlord's concept?
2. What does he do (without mentioning mechanics)?

I think it's hard to describe what the warlord does without mentioning mechanics, for the same sort of reason that it's hard to describe the difference between a 3E wizard and a 3E sorcerer without mentioning mechanics.

The warlord, in 4e, is defined by the way that s/he occupies the action economy of the game: every 4e class has ways of "spiking" their output (via encounter and daily powers). Some clases get bonus dice with such powers; some get bonus conditions; some get to do AoEs instead of single target attacks; some get to do minor or immediate action attacks; the warlord gets to grant bonus actions to other PCs.

Stripped of that - or, in 4e terms, confined to at-will abilities - the warlord becomes much less interesting, I think. You can sacrifice you own action to have another PC act (Commander's Strike etc), which is a bit of a power-up on Aid Another; and you can hand out some modest buffs, like a cleric or a bard.

The warlord needs the mechanical framework to all him or her to influence the entire group and the entire group's tactics.

I agree with you that this is the quintessence of the warlord. But I don't see how it is going to be done in Next - it would require a martial class to be balanced around encounter powers (I take it that we can agree that granting bonus actions at will would be broken), and that seems to be outside the scope of Next's design.

I think that a Warlord class makes some sense to allow use of the "combat dice" for Warlordy maneuvers, but that those maneuvers might look very different under 5e (i.e. maybe they don't grant extra actions as much.) That's simply because the 5e Warlord is in a different rules environment than the 4e Warlord

I think you are right that the influence of the different rules environment - and in particular, the absence of a unified approach to PC "output spikes" - will inevitably have a big impact on the warlord, at least as big as the influence on the thief of introducing a generalised skill system.

 

[JamesonCourage]

A bit of a side trek, but I wonder why the distinction between an explict label as an option and an implicit label as an option (say, as one of a list of powers which the player must choose from, and presumably cannot choose all from). After all, it pretty much boils down to the same thing in the end: either you or the people you are playing with at the table have it, or not.

It's different for my group, and many others, I assume.

From my experience, my players are perfectly fine with me saying "no druids" or "no bards" or "no barbarians" when we start the game; it's a sweeping campaign setting choice. They get a little iffy if I say "no Natural Skill feat", but they'll go along without too much fuss if I explain that I think it can make things overpowered; it's trying to stop problems before they start, and they appreciate the effort.

However, they question things a lot if I go on a line by line basis on what is or isn't an option; if I say "no, Bards can't get Cure Light Wounds" they'd question it, then question it again when I say "no, you don't get the Barbarian's damage reduction, you get this instead". These choices take away some player power (I'll go into that below), and in the Warlord's case (or others like it), one player taking one option alters how we all potentially play the game (where I don't run HP as explicitly luck and fate, and never as morale).

Now, in all of these situations, my players go along with it, because I'm running the game (and when I run the game, what I say goes; it's just my deal when I agree to run a game, and they know that and have no problems with that inherently). The reasons the last objections seem stronger has to due with reliable player control, in a sense. They don't mind me having the final say on what flies or doesn't, but they can't reliably build a class now without me holding their hand, because I have to say "yes" and "no" to everything I want in my game. This is why I like game systems with a "rule for everything"; yes, I can modify them, but it gives players an incredibly strong grasp on what they can do without permission from me. They can reliably make informed choices, and this last area takes that away.

This is a YMMV situation, but that's why I said it the way I did. It's not as big a deal at my table (where I say "here's the deal" and now that's the deal), but I still like letting my players have a reliable rules base for them to make decisions on, and having it be explicitly optional means that I don't have to objecting to a player making a decision that alters the very interpretation of the rules for the entire table. And, at other tables where there's a more relaxed "everyone decides setting stuff together", I would think a more explicit option for setting the interpretation of the rules (what HP means, and how it gets used in-game) wouldn't be a bad thing, either. That's just where I'm coming from, though. As always, play what you like

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think it's hard to describe what the warlord does without mentioning mechanics, for the same sort of reason that it's hard to describe the difference between a 3E wizard and a 3E sorcerer without mentioning mechanics.

I'm not sure that's so hard.

A 3e wizard is a magical scholar, a researcher and scientist of the forces Man Was Not Meant To Know. They tap into knowledge as power.

A 3e sorcerer is a magical savant, born with something more-than-human in their blood and capable of breaking the laws of nature as if they didn't apply.

Or, put another way, 3e Wizard = Elite programmer of reality; 3e Sorcerer = Transhuman cyborg. Or 3e Wizard = Nuclear physicist with a personal uranium store, 3e Sorcerer = Radiation-mutant.