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

[Obryn]

It seems really odd to me to hang your opinion of an entire game based on whether or not some dude can scream HPs back at you. In either direction. I mean, everyone's got their thing, so it's not a problem, it just seems odd to me. Like, "I hate this one Wizard spell, and thus it all sucks."

"Scream HPs back at you?" Honestly? That's where we're going? Thanks for illustrating my point...

It's a litmus test. That doesn't mean that the warlord healing is specifically essential, in and of itself. It means that a lack of warlords* and warlord healing can indicate whether the rest of the game will have any interest for me.

-O


* To be clear - I'm talking about the standard game, same place I'd expect to see barbarians and sorcerers. Not the core game; I understand that's back-to-basics red box style.

 

[GX.Sigma]

However, if that class is going to get a different name, what should the name be? Neither "Provoker" nor "Convoker" will work; "Cohort" simply means battle-comrade; "Proconsul" is a political/diplomatic position; "Veteran" needs to be available to all classes, and to unclassed NPCs; "Marshall" is a higher position, dealing more with strategy than with tactics; "Ensign" is naval and commissioned, not land-based; "Sparkplug" captures the spirit but refers to technology that didn't exist in medieval times; and "Coordinator" has too many syllables (5).
"Hotspur?" "Goader?" "Dean?" "Valiant?"

"Tactician" is the word you're looking for. That would work better for me. "Warlord" to me sounds more like what a high-level Fighter should be (not the "hey, I just had a great idea, you should attack that guy again" type character from 4e).

 

[Obryn]

"Tactician" is the word you're looking for. That would work better for me. "Warlord" to me sounds more like what a high-level Fighter should be (not the "hey, I just had a great idea, you should attack that guy again" type character from 4e).

Is it that objectionable to throw a bone to 4e players who consider the Warlord class important? Why change its name?

-O

 

[Manbearcat]

Is it that objectionable to throw a bone to 4e players who consider the Warlord class important? Why change its name?

-O

Is it really that objectionable? I mean, distilling his thematic portfolio down to Bobby Fisher and turning the "healing the morale portion of HPs" into a caricature such that he is "screaming wounds closed" doesn't sound like a problem to me. I think there is room in D&D for that guy; a front-line, pencil-neck tactician who has visible, capital letter balloons (KNIGHT TO KING'S BISHOP 3) coming out of his mouth, gallivanting through the air while they turn into little angelic surgeons, and then landing on allies to perform field triage. That might be pretty fancy.

Or we could just have the 4e warlord and he could be instilling morale by remoralizing the demoralized by way of the ruthlessly abstract nature of D&D Hit Points.

 

[Jester David]

Is it that objectionable to throw a bone to 4e players who consider the Warlord class important? Why change its name?

-O

Because what's a level one warlord? Bilbo was a level 1 rogue at the very start of the Hobbit, but what's a first level warlord? Is "lord" really the right term? And "war"?
This isn't an edition warring question, as plenty of people had problems with the name when it was renamed than at the start of 4e.
Plus the name has real world connotations. It's like naming a class a "Führer". The term is apt and descriptive, but is ruined by history.

 

[Obryn]

Because what's a level one warlord? Bilbo was a level 1 rogue at the very start of the Hobbit, but what's a first level warlord? Is "lord" really the right term? And "war"?
This isn't an edition warring question, as plenty of people had problems with the name when it was renamed than at the start of 4e.
Plus the name has real world connotations. It's like naming a class a "Führer". The term is apt and descriptive, but is ruined by history.

A level 1 Wizard is called a Wizard, not an apprentice. A level 1 cleric isn't an "altar boy." A level 1 Paladin isn't a squire.

If you want to bring back AD&D level titles, that's fine, but the class is Warlord.

-O

 

[Jester David]

Now that Next is in the works, what would you say is the soul of the Warlord, it's baremonst essence that has to be kept and captured in the new edition? What do you fear are the biggest pitfalls to overcome in the translation to the new edition?

Aiding allies is the big one. Using your action to give an ally a boost or let an ally make an attack. Granting extra movement might also be nice.
They'd work we'll with maneuvers, granting allies their damage dice and having assorted tactical maneuvers for different builds.

I wouldn't have warlords heal because that steps on the toes of magic. Instead, warlords might be able to spent Hit Dice in combat and grant damage reduction.

 

[Jester David]

A level 1 Wizard is called a Wizard, not an apprentice. A level 1 cleric isn't an "altar boy." A level 1 Paladin isn't a squire.

If you want to bring back AD&D level titles, that's fine, but the class is Warlord.

-O

he's not an apprentice, no. He's a recent graduate. The apprentice first setting out from his master's side. He's not an apprentice, but only just.
Warlord sounds too much like "general". Or "archmage". It's just too much for someone with literally 0 experience.

 

[Jester David]

A level 1 Wizard is called a Wizard, not an apprentice. A level 1 cleric isn't an "altar boy." A level 1 Paladin isn't a squire.

If you want to bring back AD&D level titles, that's fine, but the class is Warlord.

-O

5e is bringing back Prestige Classes. "Warlord" would be a great counterpart to 'archmage" and "hierophant". It is a good name, and it would be a nice nod to 4e. But it's not a good name for a 1-20 class.

 

[Obryn]

he's not an apprentice, no. He's a recent graduate. The apprentice first setting out from his master's side. He's not an apprentice, but only just.
Warlord sounds too much like "general". Or "archmage". It's just too much for someone with literally 0 experience.

Because it doesn't mean Archmage. It's the class's name. Much like a new Wizard is still learning to Wizard, a new Warlord is still learning to Warlord.

5e is bringing back Prestige Classes. "Warlord" would be a great counterpart to 'archmage" and "hierophant". It is a good name, and it would be a nice nod to 4e. But it's not a good name for a 1-20 class.

How about making Wizard and Cleric "prestige classes"?

-O