D&D 5E The Warlord shouldn't be a class... change my mind!

[Hussar]

No one's actually going to be fooled. If people hate the Warlord (for whatever reason) they're still going to hate it if it obviously reappears under a different name.

Dunno about that. Simply renaming things worked for 5e. So many of the things that people "hated" in 4e appear in 5e without so much as a ripple simply because they are named differently or presented differently. Never underestimate the power of presentation.

It's better known as "marquess" or "marquis" and isn't that esoteric.

Sure, those names are well known. But, March isn't. Which is my point. But, I do like Vanguard. That's a darn good name too.

 

[Mecheon]

Sure, those names are well known. But, March isn't. Which is my point. But, I do like Vanguard. That's a darn good name too.

Except that you're just starting the arguments all over again except now with the argument that "March is just a month, why is this a class name?"

Vanguard's okay but something I'd associate more with a defender-y class. As much as some people don't like the name, Warlord stuck a lot better than Marshall did, so I'm of the opinion just keep the name people know for the class rather than reinvent the wheel.

Hell knows I'd rename Fighter to Warrior or the like if I ever had the opportunity but I'm not getting that one

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I think you are all arguing a strawman. There is nothing wrong with the name Warlord. 4e was a long time ago, and I think you are confusing lack of interest with hate.

But the real obsiticle is simple (and this goes for psion too). WotC are having a hard time designing a class within the 5e "Keep it Simple" paradigm that will satisfy the fans of the class.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Vanguard could be an appropriate name. Not attached to the past nor to the modern use of term. No need for an exotic name. It evokes the idea of being leading the assault, but not leading the group.

Its good, but might be hard to justify if the "lazylord" archetype of leading from the back is a major component.
Was the lazylord an edge-case option in 4e outside of the usual scope of the class, or/and would it really be required for a 4e version?

I think you are all arguing a strawman. There is nothing wrong with the name Warlord. 4e was a long time ago, and I think you are confusing lack of interest with hate.

But the real obsiticle is simple (and this goes for psion too). WotC are having a hard time designing a class within the 5e "Keep it Simple" paradigm that will satisfy the fans of the class.

Should they even try to satisfy all the fans of the class, or should they simply design a class around the theme of nonmagical tactical support, with a sideline in combat?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Should they even try to satisfy all the fans of the class, or should they simply design a class around the theme of nonmagical tactical support, with a sideline in combat?

I'm sure it's not possible to satisfy all the fans of the class, or even a majority. As for the other, 5e is a less tactical game than 4e, by design.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

ts good, but might be hard to justify if the "lazylord" archetype of leading from the back is a major component.
Was the lazylord an edge-case option in 4e outside of the usual scope of the class, or/and would it really be required for a 4e version?

It was a niche build allowed by selecting the (often) single power at that specific level that allowed attack/buff without any roll by themselves. I was a fun build though, but I think it was more of a thing in theorycraft; it really depended on having the right ally with a powerful melee basic attack.

I think the Lazy-Vanguard could be something of a bannerman/standard-bearer, being on the front and setting a flag to create a zone of buffs or waving a banner to maneuver the party.

 

[Garthanos]

It was a niche build allowed by selecting the (often) single power at that specific level that allowed attack/buff without any roll by themselves. I was a fun build though, but I think it was more of a thing in theorycraft; it really depended on having the right ally with a powerful melee basic attack.

It could also be based on part bard or even be used via hybriding to take out the use of what would be cantrips for the wizard by allowing you to have some decent at-will ability that wasn't spell casting or even attacking yourself (jump out smack an enemy ineffectually and reveal an opening to the warrior type beside you) or shout a timely distraction. In other words if you want to be more scholarly bookish mage instead of warmage... multi-class with a Warlord. it could allow one to reduce the striker role for a character if you want to be a hobbit stealth rogue master without being so assassin like.

It wasnt just the use a subset of warlord abilities to be the non-combatant.

I think the Lazy-Vanguard could be something of a bannerman/standard-bearer, being on the front and setting a flag to create a zone of buffs or waving a banner to maneuver the party.

certainly a possible style.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

It could also be based on part bard or even be used via hybriding to take out the use of what would be cantrips for the wizard by allowing you to have some decent at-will ability that wasn't spell casting or even attacking yourself (jump out smack an enemy ineffectually and reveal an opening to the warrior type beside you) or shout a timely distraction. In other words if you want to be more scholarly bookish mage instead of warmage... multi-class with a Warlord. it could allow one to reduce the striker role for a character if you want to be a hobbit stealth rogue master without being so assassin like.

It wasnt just the use a subset of warlord abilities to be the non-combatant.


certainly a possible style.

My favorite builds were:
The Taxi-Bard, which allowed to have your party start the fight a the top of the initiative with a boatload of buff and teleport them in formation during the first turn.

The Chordswitch, which mixed warlord/bard/flame of hope Invoker PP (?) to buff your party in a ridicule way.

Both very fun.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Dunno about that. Simply renaming things worked for 5e. So many of the things that people "hated" in 4e appear in 5e without so much as a ripple simply because they are named differently or presented differently. Never underestimate the power of presentation.

I know you've pointed out many time just how much of 4e actually did make it into 5e, and you're not wrong. Many of the things complained about most prominently and bitterly in the edition war are still in 5e, whether you look at the nature of the mechanics or the concept or the interrelation of the two dubiously called 'dissociative mechanics,' things like second wind, BM maneuvers, PDK healing, HD, overnight healing, and hp narration all are very much like the corresponding things in 4e, and to no meaningful objection.

But the names are not the only differences. The classes have generally been restored to their former places. No longer constrained by formal role, full-casters are more versatile than ever, especially the traditionally Tier-1 classes, now with at-will attack cantrips & neo-Vancian casting, and the few sub-classes that are all that's left of traditionally-non-casting classes. In 4e, the PH had 8 classes, half of them were Martial. In 5e, the PH has 12 classes, none of which are strictly martial, and 80 sub-classes, 5 of which are.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

If you don't like the name "warlord" you could use the title "polemarch".

Polemarch - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org